Bar Council told not to be ‘kurang ajar’
The Bar Council should not become ‘kurang ajar’ (disrespectful) by questioning the former king and Pardons Board in their decision to reduce Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s jail sentence.
(NST) – Lawyer Dr Shamsher Singh Thind said this today with regard to the Malaysian Bar filing a judicial review against the Pardons Board over its decision to reduce the former prime minister’s prison term by half for his SRC International corruption conviction.
He said the Pardon Board’s duty was merely to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong ( YDPA) and not to make decision about on behalf of YDPA.
“So, if you (Bar Council) are not happy with the decision in Najib’s case, then in all actuality you are questioning the YDPA, and not the Pardons Board.
“If the judicial review application is filed, and it is dismissed with cost by the High Court, then l hope the 238 lawyers who voted in favour of the motion should bear the cost payable and the total fees involved,” he told the New Straits Times.
The Malaysian Bar is the statutory body which acts like an association for lawyers in the country, but the Bar Council is the executive body that runs the day to day operations of the Malaysian Bar.
against the Pardons Board over its decision to reduce Najib’s prison term by half for his SRC International corruption conviction.
The motion was passed during its 78th Annual General Meeting (AGM).
Newly-elected Malaysian Bar president Mohamed Ezri Abdul Wahab had said 238 members supported the motion, with one member objecting.
He said the judicial review would be filed within two weeks.
Elaborating, Shamsher, a criminologist, said there were 22,385 lawyers registered in Malaysia as at Feb 8, this year.
“Yes, 238 lawyers voted in favour of the motion, with only one opposing it, but the number of lawyers who attended the AGM pales in comparison with those who did not attend!” he added.
Shamsher also said that he was unsure as to whether the said 238 lawyers had read the case of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim & Pardons Board Member of Federal Territories v Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz [2023] 2 CLJ 236, wherein the Court of Appeal had made the following decision:
“The long and consistent established position of the law in Malaysia is that the prerogative power of the YDPA under Article 42 of the Federal Constitution is non-justiciable.
“In the premises, we are of the respectful view that there are merits in the first and second appellants’ appeals.
“The prerogative of mercy can only be exercised by the YDPA and not caught within the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts. Thus, the respondent’s suit is clearly unmaintainable and an abuse of process. In the premises, we unanimously allow the appeals with no order as to costs,” he said.
He said the Bar Council should avoid demeaning its reputation and stop being a troublemaker.
“In short, the power to pardon is the exclusive power of the YDPA.
“Bar Council should not stoop so low to become, in the words of the Court of Appeal in the aforementioned case, ‘a busybody’ or ‘a troublemaker’,” Shamsher pointed out.
