Apandi Hauls Mahathir And Govt To Court Over Termination As Ag
Mohamed Apandi Ali has filed a lawsuit against former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and the government over his alleged unlawful termination as attorney-general (AG).
The plaintiff, through law firm Messrs Shukor Baljit & Partners, filed the Writ of Summons at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Registry around 2.31pm today.
On Oct 1, it was reported that Apandi issued a letter of demand to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) over his alleged termination as AG by the then Pakatan Harapan administration in 2018.
Apandi had claimed through the letter that his termination was orchestrated by the former premier.
Through the letter, he reportedly gave the AGC seven days to respond to his claim - otherwise, he would commence legal proceedings.
According to a copy of the Writ of Summons, Apandi seeks a declaration that first-listed defendant Mahathir had committed misfeasance or misconduct in public office.
Apandi is seeking a declaration that the first defendant had caused and/or induced breach of contract between the plaintiff and the second defendant, namely the government.
He seeks a declaration that his termination as AG is not in accordance with the law.
The plaintiff is seeking a declaration that his termination as AG is a failure of compliance with Article 145 of the Federal Constitution, which deals with the procedure for the appointment of the AG, among others.
Article 145 (1) states that “the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney-General for the Federation.”
Apandi also seeks RM2,233,599.36 in special damages; general, exemplary and/or punitive damages; costs; and any other relief deemed fit by the court, among others.
According to the lawsuit’s statement of claim, Apandi alleged that his termination as AG conveyed via a letter dated June 5, 2018, from the then chief secretary to the government, was unlawful.
The plaintiff claimed that he was not furnished with any documentary evidence that shows the consent of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to his termination as AG.
Apandi claimed that Article 145 (5) of the Federal Constitution states that the plaintiff shall at all material time hold office during the pleasure of the Agong.
Article 145(5) states that “the Attorney General shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and may at any time resign his office and, unless he is a member of the Cabinet, shall receive such remuneration as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine.”
The plaintiff alleged that the advice given by the first defendant as then prime minister must be rendered via “unbiased and objective assessment” for the Agong’s consideration, among others.
“The Plaintiff contends that the First Defendant had formed a biased and jaundiced view of the plaintiff at all material time and had decided on the termination of the plaintiff as Attorney-General in any event, irrespective of the powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.
“The Plaintiff contends that at all times the First Defendant had treated the office of the Attorney-General and the person holding the said office as a civil servant and must comply with the dictates and wishes of the Prime Minister, an office occupied by the First Defendant at that material time.
“The Plaintiff pleads and contends that by the First Defendant’s conduct, act and omission, there had occasioned a tort of misfeasance in public office by the First Defendant,” Apandi alleged.
Under the legal process, the plaintiff’s solicitors would be serving sealed copies of the cause papers on the two defendants, upon extraction of the sealed copies from the Kuala Lumpur High Court Registry later. - Mkini
Artikel ini hanyalah simpanan cache dari url asal penulis yang berkebarangkalian sudah terlalu lama atau sudah dibuang :