Shafee Draws Nazi Germany Parallel Over Najib Addendum Hearing

---

 


Lawyer Shafee Abdullah has compared ongoing judicial proceedings concerning ex-prime minister Najib Abdul Razak’s royal addendum hearing to Nazi-era governance, criticising the presiding judge for making an error.
The case relates to contempt of court proceedings launched by Najib’s legal team against former attorney-general Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh, over his actions in 2024, where he declined to reveal in court the existence of a royal addendum ordering Najib to serve the remainder of his six-year jail term under house arrest.
Najib filed the application with the court on May 21.
“The deputy public prosecutor said so, the court, in open court, said so. But the attorney-general recently sent a letter to say: Can you please clarify whether this order incorporates future proceedings like the contempt case?
“It says for clarification, and he wanted a date in open court. We were not asked to come to open court.
“The learned judge issued an order administratively. He can’t do that. She cannot do that. You must hear both parties, and that is happening tomorrow again, before the same judge. We are going to complain to her that she should have heard us. Not deciding unilaterally. It is wrong.
“It is not valid. It is not a judicial decision. A judicial decision means you hear both parties. Since when do we do a Nazi-Germany kind of hearing? You must hear both parties,” Shafee said in a press conference outside the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
‘Doesn’t make sense’
The High Court had last month temporarily halted all proceedings related to Najib’s royal addendum application.
The stay comes on the heels of the Federal Court decision to take up the government’s case to challenge a lower court’s ruling that allowed the former prime minister’s appeal for a judicial review on the addendum.
Shafee was asked today to clarify if the order covers present proceedings or present and future proceedings.
“No, it does not say that. It says proceedings. The stay is on the proceedings. It means the current proceedings. It can’t mean the future proceedings. It doesn’t make sense.
“In any case, how can any court stop the filing of any application? How can you? Doesn’t make sense,” he added.
‘Further dishonesty’
Last week, the Attorney-General's Chambers defended Terrirudin, saying that the former attorney-general had carried out his duties in line with his constitutional functions.
The AGC said that Shafee’s previous allegation that he was misleading the court was baseless and that the country’s highest judicial body is scrutinising it.
“The move to initiate a committal proceeding during the appeal process was improper, immature, and prejudicial,” the AGC’s statement read.
Former attorney-general Ahmad Terrirudin SallehHowever, Shafee protested the remark today, branding the statement as a “further dishonesty”.
“The ‘prematurity’ argument is a further dishonesty, because it is not premature at all… because the contempt has happened, and is continuing to happen on a daily basis, because our client was entitled to come out on Jan 29, last year.
“It has been more than a year since he should have been placed under house imprisonment, and they have been hiding the addendum order.
“So every day he never got the addendum order, every day is a misleading misconduct by the authorities, initially, of course, by the former AG,” Shafee added.
Abuse of process
The AGC last week slammed Najib for initiating contempt proceedings against Terrirudin.
In a statement, it said the move was an abuse of process and directly in breach of a Kuala Lumpur High Court order to postpone all proceedings related to the royal addendum ordering Najib to serve the remainder of his six-year jail term under house arrest.
It clarified that the issue raised in this application is the subject of an appeal that has yet to be decided by the Federal Court, where the case has been set for hearing this July 1 and 2.
“The issues cited as the basis for the committal proceedings (filed by Najib) will be thoroughly argued in the appeal proceedings.
“The High Court had on April 28 allowed the postponement of all proceedings until the appeal case is disposed of at the Federal Court,” it said.
The AGC noted that on May 22, the High Court had also confirmed in writing that the postponement covers all existing and future proceedings related to this case, including any contempt proceeding.
“Any attempt to initiate or continue contempt proceedings when the postponement order is still in effect is a direct violation of the court ruling and will affect the orderly administration of justice,” the statement said.
The appellate court previously allowed for a judicial review to be initiated to force the government or six other parties to respond and confirm the existence of the addendum order in January last year.
‘Hide and seek’
Shafee also accused authorities of deliberately concealing information about the royal addendum, stating they cannot “play hide and seek” with crucial legal documents.
He said that his legal team had sent letters to seven different individuals and institutions, including Terrirudin, the home minister, law minister, prison director-general, and the government, with copies to the prime minister and deputy prime minister.
The letters requested confirmation of whether the addendum had been created by the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and sought a copy of the document for further legal action.
Shafee claimed that despite this, none of the seven letters received any substantive response. He said that whilst acknowledgements were received, no official confirmation or denial was provided regarding the addendum’s existence.
Istana Negara“Let’s just say the addendum is nonsense, for instance. Isn’t it their job to answer my letter that: We refer to your letter, and this addendum factually and legally does not exist. What is wrong with telling us that? Then we can keep quiet.
“They don’t dare answer because the addendum exists! And now we already know, right? That the addendum exists and the prime minister himself, twice, said that the addendum indeed exists, (it was) accepted by the attorney-general, who then gave the addendum to Istana Negara.
“Why? I don’t understand. Because the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who is the sultan of Pahang, had already issued the addendum on the same date as the first pardon order that was issued,” the lawyer said.
‘Meant to be hidden’
Shafee noted that the important question now was why the order from the 16th Agong must be accepted by the AG, who previously gave it to Istana Negara.
“There is no logic why the addendum pathway is such, unless it is meant to be hidden and not informed to Najib or his lawyers,” Shafee added.
“So we didn’t just file contempt of court for fun. We have already given him (Terrirudin) many chances to issue the addendum. How is it issued? We don’t care. We gave many chances, since January,” Shafee added.
He emphasised the legal principle of “duty of candour,” describing it as a positive obligation for authorities to disclose relevant information during court proceedings.
He argued that this duty is particularly crucial when documents exist within government offices, and failure to disclose constitutes a serious breach of legal protocol. - Mkini

---