Many misunderstood Wednesday’s hearing, says counsel
A senior federal counsel says many have misunderstood the “closed door” proceedings involving Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s judicial review application in relation to an alleged house arrest order, which was heard in the High Court here on Wednesday.
Ahmad Hanir Hambaly said the proceedings were solely for Najib’s defence team to request permission (leave) from the High Court to hear the matter.
“I think many have misunderstood. Yesterday was only for leave application.
“Under the law, leave applications should be heard in chambers. So, if the application succeeds in getting leave, only then will the court hear the case proper,” he said, adding that the court had fixed June 5 to decide.
Hanir said this when asked to respond to criticism on why the Attorney-General’s Chambers (A-GC) did not oppose the application by Najib’s lead counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah for proceedings to be held in chambers.
Court chambers is a private room or office where a judge may conduct hearings, discussions or meetings related to a case.
When proceedings are held “in chambers”, it means the hearing is private, typically with only the judge, legal representatives and parties involved in the case present.
Shafee had on Wednesday asked the court to exclude the public from hearing the case due to “sensitive materials”.
The “sensitive materials” were related to Najib’s claim that former Yang di-Pertuan Agong AlSultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin AlMustafa Billah Shah had allowed him to serve his remaining jail sentence under house arrest via an addendum order.
It was reported that Hanir and his colleague, Shamsul Bolhassan, did not object to Shafee’s request.
Judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh allowed the proceedings to be held in chambers before fixing June 5 to deliver his verdict on the leave application.
However, this move sparked widespread criticism, with former law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim joining in the fray.
In a Facebook posting titled “Covet Operation”, Zaid questioned why a case of great public interest was heard “in secret”.
“They agree that sensitive matters are involved. Sensitive to whom?
“Almost all cases brought to court will involve sensitive issues. So, is it a new rule that both prosecution and defence can agree to hide their cases from public hearings?,” he wrote.
However, Najib’s lawyer Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee said yesterday that criticism on the proceedings involving the judicial review application were “completely misplaced”.
“The criticism of yesterday’s (Wednesday’s) proceedings that they were allegedly conducted in secret are completely misplaced.
“I strongly advise any critics to check the relevant laws before disparaging parties, including the court, in this matter.
“To put the issue into context, yesterday’s proceedings was scheduled for leave to commence a judicial review — not the substantive hearing itself.
“Pursuant to Order 53 Rule 3(2) of the Rules of Court 2012, an application for leave must be made ex-parte to a judge in chambers.”
Farhan said since the Covid-19 pandemic, “chambers” matters were often conducted in open court to facilitate social distancing.
He said the request by counsel for the public to be excluded from the proceedings is 100 per cent in line with the present rules of court.
“What Bersih and other NGOs are doing is effectively calling for a rewriting or reinterpretation of the Rules of Court 2012 for this case, which ironically goes against their overarching demands for equal treatment,” he said.
It was reported that Najib had filed an application to compel the government to produce the addendum order, the contents of which he claimed had not been revealed by the government.
He named the home minister, Prison Department commissioner general, Attorney-General (AG), Federal Territories Pardons Board, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform), Legal Affairs Division director-general, and the government as respondents.