Rosmah's lawyer questions alleged judgment draft
Lawyer Datuk Jagjit Singh, who represents Rosmah, said that the research unit would not have prepared the draft opinions if instructions were not specifically given.
'The research unit would not venture on a frolic of its own without instructions and directions,' said her lawyer Datuk Jagjit Singh in his submissions here yesterday.
In her appeal, Rosmah seeks to recuse Justice Mohamed Zaini Mazlan, now a Court of Appeal judge, from presiding over her corruption case concerning the RM1.25bil solar hybrid project.
On Sept 1, 2022, Justice Mohamed Zaini found Rosmah guilty of three corruption charges linked to the hybrid solar project. She was sentenced to 10 years in prison and a RM970mil fine.
Rosmah, 73, filed a last-minute application at the High Court to recuse Justice Mohamed Zaini.
She argued that the draft judgment in her case, which had been prepared by an external party, was leaked and had gone viral just a few days prior to the delivery of the decision.
The recusal application was dismissed by Justice Mohamed Zaini at the outset of the proceedings on Sept 1, 2022.
In the appeal, Jagjit further submitted that the draft was clearly meant for the benefit of Justice Mohamed Zaini.
He said Justice Mohamed Zaini's conduct, when taken as a whole, created 'a real danger of bias'.
'The act of requesting an officer in the research unit to prepare a draft judgment is highly improper, therefore unacceptable,' he said.
The hearing continues before a three-judge panel on June 25.
Court of Appeal judge Justice Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim chaired the panel.
Two other judges on the bench were Justices Azman Abdullah and Noorin Badaruddin.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
21 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Wan Ahmad Farid to be sworn in as Chief Justice tomorrow
KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh, who has been appointed as the 17th Chief Justice, will be sworn in tomorrow. Wan Ahmad Farid, 62, succeeds Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who retired on July 2. The swearing-in ceremony and the handover of the letter of appointment are scheduled to take place at Istana Negara. In addition to Wan Ahmad Farid, eight newly appointed Court of Appeal Judges and 14 High Court Judges are also expected to be sworn in. Also appointed are Federal Court Judge Datuk Abu Bakar Jais as the President of the Court of Appeal, and Datuk Azizah Nawawi as the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, replacing their respective predecessors who are due to retire. Wan Ahmad Farid, who hails from Kuala Terengganu, was appointed as a Court of Appeal Judge on Nov 12, last year. He received a law degree from the University of West London in 1985, and received a Certificate in Legal Practice from Universiti Malaya in 1986. His legal career began as an advocate and solicitor at the law firm Messrs Adnan and Wee in Kuala Terengganu, where he served from 1987 to 2003. In addition to his legal career, he was active in administration and politics, having served as political secretary to former prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi from 2003 to 2008, before being appointed as deputy home minister from 2008 to 2009. Between 2011 and 2015, he returned to legal practice as an advocate and solicitor at Messrs Wan Farid and Surin in Kuala Lumpur. Wan Ahmad Farid began his judicial career as a Judicial Commissioner at the Shah Alam High Court, the Kuala Lumpur High Court, and the Kota Baru High Court from 2015 to 2019. He was subsequently appointed as a High Court Judge from 2019 to 2024, serving at the Kota Bharu High Court, the Shah Alam High Court (Special Powers Division), and the Kuala Lumpur High Court (Special Powers Division 3). In 2024, he played a key role in delivering judgment in a suit filed by lawyer Dr Syed Iskandar Syed Jaafar Al Mahdzar concerning the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's powers in declaring a state of emergency. In his ruling, Wan Ahmad Farid held that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's power to declare an emergency under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution is non-justiciable and therefore cannot be reviewed by the courts. Wan Ahmad Farid was also part of the panel of judges that heard a Federal Court case involving a land dispute over 263.272 acres at Duta Enclave, involving Semantan Estate Sdn Bhd.
Malay Mail
a day ago
- Malay Mail
‘We must not develop by destroying': Anwar says growth must not come at cost of people's rights
MUAR, July 27 — National development must not come at the expense of the people's rights and welfare, but should instead be carried out with principles of justice and holistic balance, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Bernama quoted him saying sustainable economic development should not sideline low-income groups, but must instead bring equitable benefits to all levels of society. 'We must not develop by destroying. We build buildings, industries, technology, economic zones… but if the people are oppressed and neglected, that is not true development,' he said when launching the 2025 National Month and Fly the Jalur Gemilang campaign at Dataran Tanjung Emas here today. Also present were Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil, Johor Menteri Besar Datuk Onn Hafiz Ghazi, Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Shamsul Azri Abu Bakar, and Director-General of the Information Department (JaPen) Julina Johan. Expanding on his remarks, Anwar said the principle of balance, or ummatan wasatan as emphasised in the Quran, encompasses justice in terms of faith and knowledge, the spiritual and the physical, as well as the worldly and the hereafter. MORE TO COME
Malay Mail
2 days ago
- Malay Mail
Rallies and shouts of ‘turun' will not lead to resignation of PM — Hafiz Hassan
JULY 26 — A written constitution like the Federal Constitution gathers unto itself various sources of law, some of which are implicit. These are unwritten sources in the form of conventions, prerogatives, discretionary and residual powers. One can therefore look beyond the written law to help ensure the continuation of constitutionalism and the rule of law. (see Zainun Ali JCA (as she then was) in Dato' Dr Zambry bin Abd Kadir v Dato' Seri Ir Hj Mohammad Nizar bin Jamaluddin (Attorney General of Malaysia, intervener) [2009] 5 MLJ 464) The first of the unwritten sources – that is, convention – is a well established source. In the Zambry v Nizar case, the established convention on loss of confidence was acknowledged by Raus Sharif JCA (as he then was). The appellate court, though, may not have decided on the convention. As such, the statement on the convention is – what lawyers call – obiter dictum. The term is Latin for 'something that is said in passing' or simply 'other things said'. Under the doctrine of stare decisis or binding legal precedent, obiter dictum (plural dicta) is not binding. It is the ratio decidendi (plural rationes decidendi) of a judgment that is binding. The term means 'the ground or reason of decision' or simply 'the rule in a decision'. It is the legal principle upon which the decision in a specific case is founded. The rule in the Zambry v Nizar case in the higher Federal Court when Nizar appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal is this: There is nothing in the Perak State Constitution stipulating that the loss of confidence in the Menteri Besar (MB) may only be established through a vote in the Legislative Assembly (LA). Evidence of loss of confidence in the MB may be gathered from other extraneous sources, provided they are properly established. Such sources should include the admission by the MB himself and/or representations made by members of the LA that the MB no longer enjoys the support of the majority of the members of the LA. On the facts of the case, there was evidence of such admission by Nizar himself and the loss of confidence of the majority of the members of the LA in the leadership of Nizar as expressed by 31 members of the LA. As there is similarly nothing in the Federal Constitution stipulating that the loss of confidence in the prime minister may only be established through a vote in the Dewan Rakyat, the ratio in the Zambry v Nizar case applies to establishing the loss of confidence in the prime minister. But while a vote on a motion of confidence in the Dewan Rakyat is not the only mechanism to establish or determine the loss of confidence, shouts of 'turun' certainly do not determine the loss of confidence. And while demonstrations or representations made by MPs – properly established – of the loss of confidence in the prime minister outside the Dewan Rakyat is a decided mechanism, public rallies are not – no matter the number of rally protestors: 10,000, 100,000 or 1 million. MPs can shout 'turun' in the Dewan Rakyat; they can join the public in a rally to call for the prime minister to 'turun' in the exercise of their basic freedoms guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. But neither will lead to the resignation of the prime minister. All it takes is a majority vote of 'Aye' to a motion of no confidence in the prime minister or properly established representations made by MPs that the prime minister has lost the confidence of the majority of MPs. That's 112 out of 222 MPs. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has dared the Opposition to 'go and table a no-confidence motion' in the Dewan Rakyat. Will the Opposition take the dare after the 'turun Anwar' rally?
