AG challenges gag order on media discussion of case

KUALA LUMPUR: Attorney General Tommy Thomas is challenging the gag order banning the media from discussing the merits of Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s case.

The top prosecutor’s objection will be fully heard on Aug 8.

Pending that date, High Court judge Justice Mohd Sofian Abd Razak had granted an interim gag order.

Thomas said the gag order was against the rights of free speech.

“Our position is that we are totally against it in principle, jurisdictionally and constitutionally because that is the right of free speech,” he told reporters at the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex here.

Thomas, however, said the prosecution was uncertain about how wide the scope of the gag order was.

“The interim gag is only for SRC (International) and the four charges.

“So, take the four charges and consult good lawyers for independent legal advice and let them tell you your rights. As for today’s proceedings, of course you can report on it,” Thomas told the media.

Earlier in a court proceeding, the High Court granted an interim gag order against the media from discussing merits of the case after defence counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah made the request.

He said his client had been facing a trial by media since he stepped down as prime minister, adding: “He (Najib) has the right to a fair trial.”

Thomas objected to the request, citing freedom of expression and speech.

“What is the point of issuing a gag order when the whole world would talk about it?” he said.

Thomas gave the example of the Sarawak Report, saying that the website was read globally.

“The defence will have to put in an official application for the gag order, which we will be vigorously objecting to,” he added.

Thomas also told Muhammad Shafee to specify whom the gag order applied to, to which the latter replied: “The media, both digital and newspaper.”

When approached later, Muhammad Shafee said the gag order was primarily aimed at stopping anyone from making statements that would get published in the media.

“Our Constitution guarantees a fair trial like most other civilised countries.

“One of the fundamentals of a fair trial is that you cannot discuss and issue statements commenting on the merits of the case in a prejudicial way, but if you’re reporting court proceedings, there is nothing wrong with it,” he said.

In a statement issued later, lawyer Syahredzan Johan said gag orders in principle were against freedom of expression, and a gag order on the high-profile case which has drawn global attention would only end up punishing local media due to the court’s limited jurisdiction.