Malaysia: Time for Public Servants to seek Legal Recourse for Violations of their Rights

August 8, 2015

Malaysia: Time for Public Servants to seek Legal Recourse for Violations of their Rights

Recent sackings and perceived constructive dismissals are shocking to say the least and unprecedented and unwarranted. It is just politics.

Our public officials having been doing the jobs finally; although the consequences are dire, they have shown that they have enough moral courage to  stand up against those in the political leadership who are corrupt and morally bankrupt, and who act without regard to the principles of natural justice.

Even the Malaysian Public Services Commission which is established under Article 144(1) of the Federal Constitution has been sidelined. As a result, public servants are exposed to intimidation and abuse of power by UMNO politicians.

rosli-dahlan2Lawyer Rosli Dahlan

There is hope yet for them to seek legal recourse in our courts. All those in  MACC and other civil servants who have been removed, transferred, raided, or subject of smear campaigns by the mainstream media or bloggers can come to lawyers like Rosli Dahlan and others.

They stand ready to provide legal services to enable the aforementioned public servants to sue, seek reinstatement and obtain injunctions and various orders including damages to make these violators accountable in the civil court and subject them to  grilling cross examination.  They can  take judicial review action and all the remedies under O.53  RC 2012. [ ]

Lawyer Rosli Dahlan successfully took action against Malaysian Anti- Corruption Commission (MACC), The Star, Utusan Malaysia and The New Straits Times. The case against Attorney-General Gani Patail, MACC Chief Commissioner Abu Kassim, DPP Nordin Hassan and 12 0thers (filed in 2008 till 2013) were won by Lawyer Rosli Dahlan.

The nation owes a debt of gratitude to YA Wazeer Alam  who wrote in his judgement that “absolute immunity is anathema to modern notion of democracy n accountability.” It is God’s way of helping this nation in anticipation of these things happening 3 years later.  God works in mysterious ways, indeed.–Din Merican

 MACC No 2: Return my men, take me instead

by Malaysiakini

MACC's Shukri

Vexed over the sudden transfer of two directors, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Number Two Mohd Shukri Abdul has demanded their reinstatement.

Mohd Shukri, who is currently attending a course in the United States, said he was willing to be made the sacrificial lamb instead. “Take me, but return the two MACC men,” he told Malaysiakini in a text message. My officers acted based on my instructions,” he added.

Asked for further comments, a disappointed Mohd Shukri replied, “I have no mood now.” He was responding to the immediate transfer of MACC special operations division director Bahri Mohamad Zin and strategic communication director Rohaizad Yaakob this evening.

The pair was transferred to the Prime Minister’s Department purportedly for disciplinary reasons. However, there has been no official confirmation on the transfer.

Bahri had openly criticised the police for interfering in the MACC probe concerning the Finance Ministry-owned firm SRC International.
He blamed hidden hands for the police action and vowed to uncover the culprits.

His division’s probe also focused on the transfer of RM42 million from SRC International subsidiaries to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s personal bank accounts between late 2014 and early this year.

Najib is also The Finance Minister.

Najib-It takes a worried man

The Police have denied interfering or acting on external orders, saying it was investigating leaked documents from the SRC probe. Meanwhile, Rohaizad landed in trouble after meeting with opposition leaders and lawmakers who went to the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya to express support yesterday.

Mohd Shukri was named in certain blogs as those conspiring to topple Najib alongside other high-profile individuals such as Bank Negara Governor Zeti Akthar Aziz.

Malaysia-The New Attorney-General

July 29, 2015

COMMENT: The appearance can be misleading. Malaysia’s newly minted Attorney-General, Mohamad Apandi Ali, 65, looks like someone belonging in the same class as  Chief Secretary Hamsa Ali and Treasury Secretary Siregar–men of mixed parentage.

Malays of mixed parentage  seem to be Najib’s favorite people forDin Merican and wife, kam senior posts in his government. Another  Malay who bears my family name, Reezal Merican, is now Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.  I suspect that this is because Malays of mixed parentage going back to Nor Mohamed Yackop and the late Governor Ali Abul Hassan of Bank Negara Malaysia during the days of the Mahathir Administration are apparently boss pleasers, and can be trusted to do their duty to the Prime Minister, our King and country (in that order) without fear or favour.

Of course, one’s parentage or ethnicity should have no bearing on any appointment be it in public service or in the business world. But in practice public service appointments are political decisions made by the Prime Minister, not strictly on merit.

Mohamad Apandi Ali, 65,In appointing a former UMNO man as Malaysia’s top legal man with powers under Article 145 of our Constitution, our Prime Minister is creating a dangerous precedent  and so is he in the case of the sacking of Gani Patail.

For all my criticisms of the former Attorney-General, I think Gani Patail’s unceremonious sacking violates the Article 145 (6). This hurried decision makes me suspect  that he may be on to “something big” with regard to the 1MDB scandal that could affect Prime Minister Najib’s political future.

Even the recent Cabinet changes reflect Najib’s quest for political survival and as such, it is a strategic move to have all his 1MDB bases covered. Loyalty is the criterion. So, there is nothing to be excited about the latest Cabinet reshuffle . “Nothing is more important than the needs of Malaysia and the people – I will always put their interests above all others,”says Prime Minister Najib Razak. Trust him? Given his track record since taking over from Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in 2009, that statement is trite and hollow. Even the Marines (with due respects to the USMC) will not buy it.

It may be worthwhile to remind ourselves of Article 145 of the Federal Constitution which makes the Attorney-General  a powerful principal legal adviser to the Government.

Article 145 of the Federal Constitution provides:

(1) 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.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Attorney-General to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet or any Minister upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other written law.

3) The Attorney-General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial.

3A) Federal law may confer on the Attorney-General power to determine the courts in which or the venue at which any proceedings which he has power under Clause (3) to institute shall be instituted or to which such proceedings shall be transferred.

(4) In the performance of his duties the Attorney-General shall have the right of audience in , and shall take precedence over any other person appearing before, any court or tribunal in the Federation.

(5) Subject to Clause (6), 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.

6) The person holding the office of Attorney-General immediately prior to the coming into operation of this Article shall continue to hold the office on terms and conditions not less favourable than those applicable to him immediately before such coming into operation and shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and in the like manner as a judge of the Federal Court.

The new Attorney-General has awesome power and and with it, the heavy responsibility to uphold the Rule of Law, not Rule by a desperate Prime Minister whose only desire is to remain office by all and any means. As for his predecessor, we should ensure that the Najib administration observes the letter and spirit of Article 145(6) of our Constitution. –Din Merican

Anwar Ibrahim: A Lone Voice from Prison delivers a Message of Hope

July 25, 2015

MALAYSIA: A Lone Voice from Prison delivers a Message of Hope

Anwar --The Prisoner

Anwar Ibrahim


With the Najib Administration facing even more pressure now to explain the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim has seized the opportunity to rally his supporters, saying although tough times are expected ahead for Malaysians, the country’s growing opposition cannot be silenced.

Anwar, who was given the opportunity to pen an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), the international daily now facing the possibility of lawsuit by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, said Malaysia is ready for the change long-trumpeted by the federal opposition, one that he claimed would see a return to the underpinnings of the Federal Constitution.

The PKR de facto leader, now five months into his five-year jail sentence for sodomy, also said a “brighter future” is possible with good governance and the rule of law.

“We believe in the dismantling of Malaysia’s system of race-based privileges that has devolved into nothing more than rent-seeking for the privileged few. We believe that corruption is a slow bleed that robs future generations of the education and business opportunities that will make them prosper,” he wrote in the piece.

Anwar, who was the Deputy Prime Minister from 1993 to 1998, said his decision to stay in the country to face prosecution had not been easy and had put a “tremendous burden” on his family but insisted that he had done so because he believes the country is ready for change.

“Malaysia is ready for change.This is why, rather than flee my country, I chose to stay and continue the fight for peaceful, democratic reform from my prison cell,” he said.

He also said in four decades in public service, this was the first time racial and religious sensitivities have become so inflamed, and at the same time so poorly managed by the country’s political leadership.

He said the “real danger ahead” is that Malaysia could devolve into a failed state after several decades of economic mismanagement, opaque governance and overspending.

“The irresponsible manner in which the current leadership is handling religious issues to curry favor from the extreme right is fueling sectarianism.Increased political repression may drive some to give up on the political system altogether and consider extralegal means to cause change, thus creating a tragic, vicious cycle,” Anwar added.

The only way out of this “mess”, he said, was to uphold the Malaysian Constitution, to ensure better checks and balance in the administration, keep the elections free and fair; and a media that is not afraid to challenge authority.

The Najib government is currently under pressure to explain the 1MDB scandal, following the series of exposes by media outfits claiming to be in possession of documents that show impropriety in the state investor’s allegedly opaque deals.

In its July 2 exposé, WSJ, citing documents from Malaysian investigators currently probing 1MDB’s financials, said a money trail showed that US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) had been funnelled into what is believed to be Najib’s accounts.

Rosli Dahlan Vs Gani Patail and Cohorts

July 22, 2015

COMMENT: I have  been following and writing about  theDin MericanUC plight of my good friends, Dato Ramli  Yusoff and Lawyer Rosli Dahlan over a number of years. I continue to be critical about the MACC Chief Commissioner, and the Attorney-General  and former Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the present IGP.

My view is that they all have acted with impunity and must face the consequences of their actions against Dato’ Ramli and Lawyer Rosli. It is now in the hands of the presiding Judge to decide and deliver the verdict based on all evidence before him.  I am convinced that justice will prevail in the end. These public officials deserve whatever is due to them for failing to do their duty with due diligence and high sense of responsibility. The Attorney-General can tell the Martians that “All actions thereon were taken against the plaintiff (Rosli) premised on and in accordance with the law”. –Din Merican

Attorney-General Gani Patail : No Malice in Lawyer Rosli’s prosecution

 by FMT Reporters

Attorney-General Gani Patail claims had ‘reasonable and probable cause’ to pursue criminal action, but observers are unconvinced.

Rosli-DahlanLawyer Rosli Dahlan

Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail and his ten co-defendants have labelled as a “misconception” the facts which senior lawyer Rosli Dahlan set out in his statement of claim which the latter says amounted to abuse of power, malicious prosecution and a conspiracy between Gani, former Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan, current Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner Abu Kassim Mohamed and several other Police and MACC officers.

In a joint statement of defence dated July 10 filed in court by the Attorney-General’s Chambers in response to Rosli’s statement of claim, the defendants had claimed that all facts, inferences and implications pleaded by Rosli in his statement of claim could not amount to any cause of action entitling him to bring the lawsuit against them.

“The onus is on the plaintiff to plead clearly a complete cause of action, not merely hurl accusations without basis,” the defence states. “The plaintiff is put to strict proof of each of his allegations.”

The AG and the rest

Gani and his co-defendants also claim that they had “reasonable and probable cause” to pursue criminal action against Rosli as they believed him to be an associate of Ramli. They added that the two notices to Rosli had been validly issued by the MACC under section 32(1)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 and that the practising lawyer had failed to comply with the said notices.

“MACC has evidence and proof that show that the plaintiff had a good relationship with Ramli and that he had acted for Ramli in several transactions involving property and companies which Ramli is believed to have owned,” the defence states.

“MACC, therefore, has reasonable cause and evidence to believe that Ramli was involved in corrupt activities and was liable to be investigated under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997.

“All actions thereon were taken against the plaintiff (Rosli) premised on and in accordance with the law,” the defence reads further.

Gani also claims in the defence that the pursuit of Rosli’s prosecution and appeals against the decisions of the courts in respect thereof were entirely matters within his discretion in his capacity as public prosecutor of the federation pursuant to Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution and that the discretion was exercised after giving due consideration to public policy and were based on the outcome of investigations which had been conducted.

“All actions were taken in good faith and without malice,” he pleads.

Other points raised by the defendants in their defence include that the current action was duplicitous given that it was largely similar to a parallel case presently on-going before Justice Su Geok Yiam in another High Court.

The defendants also claim that the plaintiff is time-barred from bringing the action by reason of the provisions of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1948. Section 2 of the Act provides that all actions must be commenced within thirty-six months of the accrual of the cause of action.

Observers following both this and the parallel case, however, have expressed surprise and reservations as to the contents of the defence put forward.

They note that a large portion of Rosli’s statement of claim narrates facts and findings which have either already been determined by the criminal courts which heard the prosecution’s case against both Ramli and Rosli or which have already been the subject of much of the testimony already adduced in the parallel case.

In particular, they told FMT that in the criminal case against Rosli, Sessions Court judge Abu Bakar Katar had in his decision delivered on December 20, 2010 found that the prosecution in the case before him had failed to disclose that Rosli was Ramli’s associate. He also said that the notices were issued without basis and that the prosecution had failed to prove that Rosli had intentionally neglected to respond to them.

Apart from that, they say that Utusan Malaysia and the Star have already issued admissions and apologies to Rosli, while the New Straits Times and MACC itself have been found liable to him for defamation and were ordered to pay him RM300,000 in damages, both arising from the publication of matters which are at the heart of the case.

They also suggest that Gani and his co-defendants have put up what is largely a ‘bare denial’ defence, i.e. a defence which merely seeks to put Rosli to strict proof of his averments without offering an alternative version of the events which transpired.

In addition to that, the parallel case has already seen former MACC prosecutor Kevin Anthony Morais admit as untrue allegations that Rosli had acted as Ramli’s lawyer in property transactions.

The defence of limitation raised by the defendants also appears likely to fail as the very same arguments have already been canvassed and were rejected by the Court of Appeal, although an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court on that decision is pending.

Finally and probably most startlingly, the suggestion that the defendants had reasonable and probable cause to pursue Rosli’s criminal prosecution appears to fly in the face of evidence already given in the parallel case, although no decision has been rendered on it as yet.

Under rules of procedure, Rosli is entitled to file a reply to the defence within fourteen days of service. Thereafter, Justice Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera is expected to issue directions at case management which will lead to the matter coming up for trial.

Gani and his fellow defendants had delayed for some eighteen months in the filing of their defence to the case, much to Rosli’s despair and annoyance.

On May 28, High Court Judge Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera instructed Gani and his co-defendants to file their defence within 30 days. It is understood that the deadline was extended upon requests by Cecil Abraham, who acts as lead counsel for Gani and his co-defendants.

Vazeer will preside over the next case management of the case on July 29.

Malaysia: Najib is above the Law, shame on the Enforcers and the Judiciary

July 15, 2015

Malaysia: No one is above the Law, but Najib is the Special One

by Manjit Bhatia

Najib in Prayer2

As corruption scandals plague the Prime Minster, this is the moment Malaysians should openly demand justice in their country – something the law and judiciary won’t give them.

When on  July 8, Defence Minister Hishamuddin Hussein declared that no-one in Malaysia is “above the law”, many Malaysians would have either shrieked in horror or laughed till their stomachs hurt. But nobody would have shuddered at the idea that Hishamuddin would shamelessly tell another bald-faced lie or trumpet yet another cockamamie from his loft.

Coming from a regime renowned for hiring congenital liars and compulsive shysters since 1969 — although one could also revisit some wild porkies told in the 1950s and 60s — Hishamuddin’s attempt at grabbing the political middle-ground, to be seen as some sort of conciliatory ‘statesman’-like figure, flatly slammed back into his face.

Most Malaysians will have experienced the crudely thwarting ability of the 58-year-old ruling UMNO-Barisan Nasional regime to make the country’s laws bendable. So pliant are they, that today Malaysia’s laws are inherently farcical. Malaysian laws, in general and specific terms, are a disgrace.

Malaysian laws serve UMNO-BN’s narrow, immediate, ideo-political and economic interests. Malaysians understand there is no such things as equality before the law, let alone justice in this increasingly pariah, Third World state with grand pretensions of becoming an “advanced nation” by 2020.

Najib Razak, Hishamuddin’s cousin and boss, Malaysia’s Prime Minister, and Finance Minister to boot, is directly implicated in a monstrous corruption scandal, the likes of which Malaysians have never seen. Some US $700m is alleged to have been transferred to several bank accounts in his name, while 2 million ringgit has been allegedly deposited into his wife’s bank account. It is difficult to see Najib extricating himself with comprehensive inculpability, much less virtuousness, from the mounting shambles around his integrity and political legitimacy.


This is precisely the moment Malaysians should openly demand justice in their country along principles of ‘justice as fairness’. It will not happen. Hishamuddin, an UMNO Vice-President who, in 2005, while clutching the traditional Malay keris (short-sword), threatened to spill non Malay-Muslim blood in the name of Malay superiority, knows this well. So, too, Malaysia’s Bar Council, which has remained peculiarly quiet. Not a squeak.

To all intents and purposes, the entire Malaysian cabinet, including Hishamuddin, would have been aware that the monies transferred into Najib’s personal bank accounts — exposed by The Wall Street Journal on 2 July — had been used to rig the 2013 elections and yet again defraud Malaysians of their right to regime change.

That outcome is now history. But it is another ugly chapter in this country’s growing repulsiveness when added to its penchant to also practice racism and religious bigotry. No court in Malaysia will sit in judgment on these matters. If and when it does, judgment almost always never comes in a hurry, if at all.

Islamic groups — financed by taxpayers and ideologically supported by UMNO, an exclusively Malay-Muslim political party — engage in body and identity snatching: recurring episodes of forced, surreptitious and illegal conversions of non-Muslims to Islam.

Their blackguard actions are soiled in the politics of Islamising the country for purely desperate politically reasons. The greater the Muslim base of Malaysia’s 30 million population, the better the chance of the right wing UMNO continuing to rule Malaysia under false pretenses.

Not that the regime-pliant judiciary would dare preside against the illegalities of the 2013 general elections that clearly depicted UMNO’s fraud, led by Najib. Since 2014, Malaysia’s Federal and Appeals courts have deferred the decision to declare the 2013 poll null and void to the Registrar of Societies. ROS is answerable only to the home minister, a draconian character. In historical terms ROS augments UMNO’s autocratic rule and electoral fraud alongside the regime’s handpicked Election Commission.

Ruling politicians are accorded the same treatment by Malaysia’s ‘laws’, and at a much higher level: they are effectively untouchable. Like all former Inspector-Generals of Police, the current IGP is not a public servant but a puppet of UMNO, whom he and his police force, debauchedly corrupt, protect, come hell or high water. It makes lighter work for Malaysia’s judges.

Mahathir Mohamad-2014

In his time as Prime Minister (1981-2003) Dr Mahathir did his darnedest to destroy the constitution and substantively reduce the position of Malaysia’s monarchs. They are today voiceless, powerless, and were happy to become a despotic class. To the extent that Mahathir for the most part hid behind his repressive laws and the malleable judiciary, Najib has been doing likewise in his bid to stifle popular dissent and the potential for mass revolt.

Murdered Mongolian ex-model Altantuyaa.

Najib has learnt well from his mentor. Mahathir’s political cretins, in the Gramscian vernacular, have gotten away with some of the worst graft accusations, mostly via their business cronies. Najib and perennially bungling ministers and senior bureaucrats know they need never fear fronting a Malaysian judge. So much so, the rort has continued like an unbridled market for lecherous grubbiness.

Najib has never been before a judge for all the scandals that have erupted under his charge as either a minister in other portfolios, and as prime minister and finance minister since March 2009. His name continues to be linked to the cold-blooded murder of 28-year-old Altantunya Shaariibuu, the Mongolian model and translator in the scandalous Scorpene submarines deal when Najib was defense minister.

To be sure, Najib is most unlikely to be indicted, despite the fact that there is sufficient evidence to, at the very least, raise the possibility if not probability of corruption and electoral fraud. After all, laws in Malaysia are severely asymmetrical and deeply prejudiced. Malaysian laws serve to dispense immediate justice on behalf of its political masters, advance their self-interests as well as those of the filthy-rich class of Malaysians with direct political connections.

There is literally no dispensation or indeed chance of dispensation of credibly proper and full justice against UMNO-BN chieftains and or their business cronies regardless of the existence of irrefutable evidence of various illegalities in their depraved wealth accumulation.

This situation is not helped when the IGP refuses to investigate any of them but is happy to make chronically ill-thought political judgments on behalf of his puppet masters. His investigatory judgments based in law are non-existent.

It is also not helped by the current attorney-general, whose job description is scarcely dissimilar to the IGP’s; the foremost protection of the odiously corrupt, deceitful and treacherous UMNO-BN regime.

UMNO ministers have crawled out of their hiding holes to state and restate with hyena-like frequency that Najib is not legally bound to step down, even as various investigations into his alleged corruption proceed apace. Or that he need not step down at all because he has not broken the law.

The second claim is true — so far, and up to a point. The first one, though, is born of heightened scandalous stupidity. At stake are the names of the offices of prime minister and finance minister and of the country (already damaged goods).

Malaysia is almost wholly dependent on international financial markets, international investors, and international trade for its national income, where the budget deficit is inching up, the current account is narrowing by the month, where unemployment is rising, and where domestic and international capital flight could whack the economy sideways and backwards.

But never mind, just as long as patron Najib, UMNO-BN politicians and their cronies and nepotists remain above Malaysia’s spineless laws. They need not worry in any case: there are no laws in Malaysia to speak of in the first place.

Manjit Bhatia is head of research at AsiaRisk, an economic and political risk consultancy firm.

Gani Patail, Abu Kassim and Gang told to file defence by July 6, 2015

June 30, 2015

Gani Patail, Abu Kassim and 9 others given another 7 days to file their defence


 Lawyer Rosli Dahlan has given Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Tan Sri Abu Kassim and 9 others who are facing a suit for abuse of power and malicious prosecution, another week to file their defence despite they having missed the court’s deadline.

Rosli’s lawyer Parvinder Kaur Cheema, said her client only gave the defendants a week, instead of two weeks as requested by Gani’s lawyer Tan Sri Cecil Abraham. “The defendants must now file their defence by July 6 following the extended deadline as agreed by both parties,” she told The Malaysian Insider.

On May 28, High Court judge Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera instructed Gani and the rest of the defendants to file their defence within 30 days so that trial could proceed.The judge had also fixed the next case management on July 29

Parvinder said the deadline for the defendants would have expired yesterday. She said Abraham had made a verbal request that the plaintiffs gave them more time since he and his team were moving to set up their own legal firm.

The Malaysian Insider understands that the senior lawyer, formerly with Zul Rafique & Partners, would begin operating his own legal firm sometime in mid-July with a group of lawyers.


Rosli and former Commercial Crime Investigation Department chief Datuk Ramli Yusuf filed suits in November 2013 against Gani and the rest for, among others, alleged malicious prosecution over corruption charges.The courts have cleared them of the charges.

In a landmark ruling in April last year, Vazeer Alam dismissed the application to strike out Rosli and Ramli’s suit, saying the matter must go to trial. Vazeer Alam had remarked that the A-G, who holds public office, cannot escape suits when they involve allegations of abuse of power.

“I am afraid that the notion of absolute immunity for a public servant, even when mala fide or abuse of power in the exercise of their prosecutorial power is alleged, is anathema to modern day notions of accountability,” Vazeer Alam had said.

Both Rosli and Ramli are now claiming damages to the tune of about RM176 million. Ramli, in his RM128.5 million suit, had also named former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan and 10 others for wrongfully bringing two charges against him.

Rosli, in his suit, is claiming more than RM47 million for conspiring to arrest and charge him in court over an alleged failure to declare his assets. Rosli named Gani, Musa and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief commissioner Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed in their personal capacities.

The lawyer alleged that Gani had a role in the malicious prosecution.On April 1, a three-member Court of Appeal bench, chaired by Datuk Abdul Hamid Sultan, also dismissed the defendants’ appeal to strike out the suit.

The defendants then filed a leave application in the Federal Court on April 28 to appeal against the Court of Appeal ruling. Subsequently the defendants also filed an application to stay the High Court order which directed them (on May 28) to file their defence. However, proceedings in the apex court last week had been adjourned to a date to be fixed.