Shafee denies contempt of court charge
KUALA LUMPUR: Lawyer Tan
Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah (pic) wants to challenge the Attorney General’s committal proceeding against him for contempt of court over a statement he made after a case proceeding involving Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
“I am not fearful of this at all because I have never disrespected any court,” he said when met by reporters.
Muhammad Shafee, 66, questioned AG Tommy Thomas’ move in initiating the proceeding.
He chose to take an action against me apparently over a statement which was given as a result of answering a question from a reporter, he said.
According to Muhammad Shafee, he was asked about the prospect of winning Najib’s case, which was related to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) when he made the statement.
“I said this very carefully: If you give me a straight judge, if you give me witnesses that are not coached and evidence that is not fabricated, I have a good chance of winning.
“How could that be contemptuous? It is laughable,” he added.
Earlier, the AG obtained leave to initiate an order of committal proceeding against Muhammad Shafee for contempt of court.
High Court judge Justice Mohd Firuz Jaffril granted the leave when the case was brought up for mention in his chambers.
Senior Federal Counsel Shamsul Bolhassan who appeared for the AG told reporters that the court has fixed March 25 for case management.
The ex-parte application was filed last month at the High Court Registrar’s Office and named Muhammad Shafee as the sole defendant.
Muhammad Shafee is the advocate and solicitor representing Najib, who has been charged at the High Court with several offences relating to the 1MDB scandal.
According to the originating summons, after the court proceedings involving Najib at the High Court on Feb 7, the defendant was interviewed by several journalists outside the court room, and it was recorded by a videographer from news portal Kinitv.com and telecast on Kinitv which is accessible via https://m. kinitv.com/video/70311O8.
In its application, the AG claimed the defendant knew or ought to have known that the offensive statement was contemptuous to the judge and would undermine the administration of justice and public confidence in the judicial system in Malaysia.
It further said the defendant knew or ought to have known that the offensive statement would clearly place the trial judge in an embarrassing situation and create a state of uncertainty about the fair and just determination of the criminal case.
The cases involved RM42mil funds belonging to SRC International Sdn Bhd.
The AG claimed the words uttered were deliberate and with intent by the defendant in an attempt to pressure and influence the decision in that criminal case.