KUALA LUMPUR (May 27): There is no prima facie case against Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah that warrants leave to be granted to initiate a contempt proceeding against the senior lawyer, his lawyers David Mathews and Harvinderjit Singh told the High Court today.

They said the affidavit affirmed by Attorney General (AG) Tommy Thomas did not disclose that he had listened to the recording or read the full transcript of Shafee's press conference and it cannot be said that the AG has personal knowledge of the entire contents of the entire video recording of the transcript.

Thomas’ affidavit, they said cannot verify the purported contempt allegedly committed by Shafee as it is not within his knowledge.

They further submitted that Thomas’ affidavit is also ambiguous, vague and imprecise as it fails to identify "the purported judge" in question as said in the press conference held on Feb 7.

“A defective affidavit is as good as having none,” they said in the bid to set aside the application for leave to initiate a contempt proceeding against Shafee.

“We submit that Thomas' affidavit does not properly verify the facts stated in the statement and therefore this court was wrong to say there was a prima facie case of contempt made against Shafee,” they added.

Furthermore, they said the contempt proceeding should have been heard before the trial judge hearing the former premier Datuk Seri Najib Razak's SRC case. It should not be heard before another judge as this is akin to shopping for a judge to hear the case, they said.

Earlier, Mathews also expressed his unhappiness at news portals’ reports on High Court Judge Datuk Mohd Firuz Jaffril purportedly chiding Senior Federal Counsel Shamsul Bolhassan for a late submission filing last week.

Mathews said he felt compelled to address the court about what he thought as the reports were unfair and cast Shamsul in a bad light, he said.

“(I) hope the media would be mindful of the words used in future,” he said.

Justice Firuz Jaffril then said to Shamsul: “If what I’ve said (last week) landed you in trouble, it was not my intention.”

Shamsul is representing the AG, who had previously obtained ex-parte leave on March 1 to proceed with the contempt proceedings against Shafee.

Thomas made an ex-parte application to the High Court in February to initiate committal proceedings against Shafee over his media statement in relation to Najib’s SRC case. Shafee was named as the sole defendant.

In the application, Thomas said Shafee is an advocate and solicitor representing Najib, who has been charged in the High Court with several offences related to the 1Malaysia Development Bhd scandal.

On Feb 7, 2019, after the court proceedings involving Najib in the High Court, Shafee was interviewed by several journalists outside the courtroom, and the interview was recorded by a videographer from Kinitv.com and telecast on KiniTV, which is accessible via https://m.kinitv.com/video/70311O8.

Thomas claimed that Shafee knew or ought to have known that the offensive statement was contemptuous to the judge and would undermine the administration of justice and public confidence in the judicial system in Malaysia.

He said Shafee also knew or ought to have known that the offensive statement would clearly place the trial judge in an embarrassing situation and create a state of uncertainty about the fair and just determination of the criminal case.

He claimed that the words were uttered deliberately and with intent by Shafee to pressure and influence the decision in that criminal case.

Thomas contended that the offensive statement, made right after the proceedings involving the accused, had only one meaning and was intended to bring disrepute to the courts and judges and that it would undermine the administration of justice and public confidence in the judicial system in Malaysia.

He said considering the words in their entirety, the public would reasonably perceive that, if the accused were to be convicted, the trial judge was not straight, the judge was influenced, the witnesses were coached and the evidence was fabricated.

He also said the words would not only adversely affect the image and prestige of the courts and judges in Malaysia but place the trial judge in an embarrassing situation, as the words would create a state of uncertainty about the fair and just determination of the case.

The hearing will continue on June 14.