Shafee's own conduct led to motion at Bar AGM, lawyer argues

The motion tabled by Tommy Thomas against Muhammad Shafee Abdullah at the Malaysian Bar annual general meeting in 2015 was a result of Shafee's own actions, the Court of Appeal heard today.

Tommy' lawyer Ambiga Sreenevasan in her submission said one has to bear in mind that Shafee was an ad hoc prosecutor in Anwar Ibrahim's case.

Ambiga was submitting in Shafee's appeal on his defamation suit against Tommy, former Court of Appeal judge VC George, the Malaysian Bar and its then-president Christopher Leong for tabling the motion at the AGM.

She said after Shafee had secured the conviction of Anwar at the Federal Court, he went on to give interviews to the print and online media and participated in roadshows discussing the case.

The first roadshow was held in Kelana Jaya and organised by Umno, Ambiga added.

"Can an ad hoc public prosecutor takes sides with a political party in this manner?" she submitted before a three-member bench led Justice Wong Dak Wah.

The others in the panel were Justice Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid and Justice Ahmadi Asnawi.

Before the talk in Kelana Jaya, Ambiga said Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin had "advertised" to detractors and challenged them to ask questions regarding the case.

"Two hundred people attended the talk and a live stream of the event was telecast, where Shafee not only discussed the case but also discussed the 'in camera' proceedings.

"It is the plaintiff's (Shafee) own conduct that precipitated the notice of motion to be made as he had brought disrepute to the legal profession.

"Here we have Shafee telling the audience that he was prepared to debate anyone including the Malaysian Bar regarding the conviction, but he was not prepared to come to the Bar meeting to defend himself," she said.

In his suit, Shafee complained that the defendants had acted mala fide and ultra vires of his right by wanting to table the motion at the AGM of which he had earlier obtained an injunction.

Shafee lost the suit at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur in May, 2016. 

'Which public prosecutor does that?'

Ambiga (photo) said Shafee's actions were to smear the name of a convicted person.

"Which public prosecutor does that?" she asked, adding that even former attorney-general Abu Talib Othman and former judges complained about such conduct.

Ambiga tendered paragraphs of the transcript of what Shafee had said in the Kelana Jaya event and also the court transcript of the "in camera" proceedings.

"In camera" is a legal term that means in private - a process where the public and press are not allowed to observe the procedure or process in court.

Ambiga added that Shafee's conduct was also raised in the Dewan Rakyat where a minister in the Prime Minister's Department agreed that the government helped organise one of the roadshows.

She urged the appellate court to dismiss Shafee's appeal

Meanwhile, lawyer Porres Royan who appeared for George said the Bar Council, as the guardian on the conduct of lawyers, has the power to deal with complaints as long as they do not impose punishment, which is the role of the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (ASDB).

"The Bar AGM also can decide as long it does not involve in passing sentence," he added.

Lawyer Lambert Rasaratnam for the Malaysian Bar said under the Legal Profession Act, any member can submit a motion at the AGM to take cognisance of what was happening.

The Malaysian Bar through the AGM can only make recommendations, he added.

"However, the decision will be made by the ASDB."

Kangaroo court

In his appeal, Shafee, who is representing himself, contended that the motion had violated his rights under Articles 5 and 8 of the Federal Constitution.

"The move was ultra vires. It was a move to bar or injunct me as the said motion would have the power of the High Court and amount to the dissipation of powers of the High Court," he said.

"The motion was a breach of natural justice for me to have a fair hearing."

The senior lawyer said this was no ordinary motion as it sought to punish him at the AGM.

"It was drafted by the first respondent and seconded by the second. The motion would deny me of my rights. I will be a sitting duck if the motion was allowed to be tabled and the proceedings in the AGM would be like a kangaroo court," he said.

The hearing of the appeal continues tomorrow with Shafee's reply to the submissions made by the respondents' lawyers.- Mkini