Mar 4 hearing of AG’s leave application for committal proceeding against Isham Jalil

KUALA LUMPUR: The AttorneyGeneral’s (AG) application to the High Court for leave to initiate committal proceedings against former UMNO Supreme Council (MT) member Isham Jalil for contempt of court will be heard on March 4.

Deputy public prosecutor Mohamad Mustaffa P Kunyalam said the hearing will be before Judge Datuk Noorin Badaruddin.

The public prosecutor has been ordered to file submissions on or before Feb 29, he said when contacted after the case management Deputy Registrar Nur Azizah Jaafar today.

In the ex-parte application filed last Dec 28, the AG also requested the court to imprison or impose a fine on Isham, whose real name is Hizatul Isham Abdul Jalil for the offence.

It was over an interview titled “Townhall for Justice: Keadilan Sebenarnya Untuk Siapa”, during which Isham reportedly commented on the trial and appeal of former Prime Minister

Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in the SRC International and 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) cases.

The comments were published on the Facebook page of “The Malaya Post” on Sept 30 last year.

The AG claimed that in the interview, Isham was alleged to have challenged the recusal process involving Judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah, who presided over the 1MDB trial at the High Court here.

“The respondent, among other things, gave explicit or implicit comments that allegedly meant that the judge acted with bias in deciding the application.

“In addition, the respondent also disputed the appeal process at the Federal Court of the SRC International case between Datuk Seri Najib and the Public Prosecutor.

“The respondent gave explicit or implicit comments that implied the appeal was judged unfairly by the Federal Court panel led by the Chief Justice,” stated the AG.

According to the AG, the words spoken by Isham in the interview as a whole contained a real risk, which could undermine the public’s confidence in the judiciary and amount to interference with the administration of justice.

“The said respondent’s actions humiliate the judiciary and therefore, it is an interference in the administration of justice as well as a serious insult,” claimed the AG.