Make meaning of ‘public officer’ clear, court urged

Judge: It would help in govt-related cases

KUALA LUMPUR: It is timely for the Federal Court or even Parliament to decide on or provide a clear definition of “public officer”, now that a second panel of Court of Appeal judges has decided that the prime minister is not a public officer.

Justice Yeoh Wee Siam, who penned the judgment for the second panel, said this before dismissing Tony Pua’s appeal against a High Court judgment in favour of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and the Government.

Pua had accused Najib of “abusing” his office in the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) scandal, but the court in its 20-page judgment ruled that the Damansara MP was unable to prove that Najib was a public officer.

Another panel of judges of the Court of Appeal had previously ruled similarly in the case brought by former Opposition leader Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and former Umno divisional leader Khairuddin Abu Hassan against Najib.

Dr Mahathir and Khairuddin later filed for leave to appeal to the Federal Court, but the apex court dismissed the application on Feb 27.

“We decided to similarly rule that for the purpose of the present case, the first defendant (Najib), in his capacity as the prime minister, is not a ‘public officer’,” Yeoh said in her written judgment, which was made available to the media on Friday.

Yeoh sat with two other judges – Justices Ahmadi Asnawi (who chaired the panel) and Kamardin Hashim – for Pua’s case.

“Our decision is consistent with and fortified by the fact that the application of the appellants in the Tun Dr Mahathir case, for leave to appeal to the Federal Court, was dismissed by the Federal Court.

“As it stands now, the decision of the Court of Appeal in that case is still the authority on the matter. We see no reason or think it appropriate to depart from that decision.

“It is not for this court to review that decision in the present case or to come up with another decision which is inconsistent with that decision,” she said in the judgment.

Yeoh added that it was open to Pua to apply for leave to appeal the decision to the Federal Court for a final determination of the meaning of “public officer”.

“We are of the considered opinion that it is timely for the Federal Court, or even the legislature if necessary, to decide on or provide for a clear definition of ‘public officer’ for the specific purpose and application in the law of the tort of misfeasance in public office,” she said.

Pua sued Najib and the Government on Jan 16 last year, claiming that the former premier had committed misfeasance in public office involving 1MDB funds.

Najib filed to strike out Pua’s suit on Feb 14 last year on the grounds that he is not a civil servant, as alleged by Pua in his statement of claim.

The Government also filed an application to strike out the suit on March 2 last year on the grounds that Pua had no locus standi (the right to bring an action) to make the claim and that the suit was frivolous, vexatious and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.

On Oct 13 last year, the High Court allowed Najib’s application to strike out Pua’s suit, ruling that Najib was not a public officer.

The High Court also found that Pua lacked locus standi because a taxpayer does not have the direct right to property belonging to a Government-linked company in the same way a stockholder owns stocks in a company.