…
malaysiakini.comVerified account @malaysiakini 6 hours ago
I was defending the judiciary with Anwar roadshow, Shafee says
.
Senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah told the Court of Appeal today the reason why he held talks and gave interviews after PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim’s 2015 sodomy conviction was to protect the judiciary.
This came about, Shafee said, after “attacks” on the judiciary at the time from Anwar, as well as former presidents of the Malaysian Bar, Christopher Leong and Ambiga Sreenevasan.
He cited Anwar’s…statement form the dock during the latter’s sentencing, where the opposition leader criticised the judiciary, and was not stopped by his lawyer Gopal Sri Ram.
The senior lawyer also pointed to a statement released by Leong a day after the decision to maintain Anwar’s five-year sentence, titled “Prosecution or persecution,” which he termed “reckless.”
“I hit the ceiling when I saw the statement, which to me is contemptuous, done without care and reckless,” Shafee said, adding that Ambiga’s remarks several days after the decision were similarly “contemptuous.”
“I see all this as the worst contempt of court, but no action was taken against Anwar, Leong or Ambiga,” he told the appellate court.
Shafee is representing himself in his appeal over his defamation suit against senior lawyer Tommy Thomas, former Court of Appeal judge VC George, the Malaysian Bar, and Leong, over wanting to table a motion against him for holding roadshows.
His suit had been dismissed by Justice Hanipah Farikullah in 2016.
…
February 12, 2018
Ambiga: Shafee smeared Anwar’s name even after final sodomy verdict
PUTRAJAYA: Lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who was given a licence to prosecute Anwar Ibrahim for sodomy on behalf of the government, smeared the opposition leader’s name even after securing a conviction for sexual misconduct, the Court of Appeal was told today.
Counsel Ambiga Sreenevasan said Shafee even went to the extent of challenging anyone why Anwar should not be found guilty.
She said the ad-hoc prosecutor also declared that Anwar should have been charged under Section 377B of the Penal Code, which carried a heavier penalty of up to 20 years.
Anwar, whose conviction for committing the offence against his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, was affirmed by the Federal Court on Feb 10, 2015, was sentenced to a five-year jail term.
Prosecutors had framed a charge under Section 377C, which carried a minimum jail term of five years.
“This was like saying that Anwar should have been charged with murder that carries the death penalty instead of culpable homicide not amounting to murder that provides only a jail term,” she said.
Ambiga said Shafee, who was given a licence to prosecute at the Court of Appeal in 2014, planned to smear Anwar’s name after the conviction was affirmed by the apex court.
“Even a deputy public prosecutor would not have done that and the move by Shafee was unusual,” said Ambiga, who is appearing for lawyer Tommy Thomas.
Shafee is appealing against a May 26, 2016 High Court ruling that had dismissed his defamation suit against the Malaysian Bar, its former president Christopher Leong and two senior lawyers.
…
12 July 2017
malaysiakini.comVerified account @malaysiakini
Meanwhile in the Federal Court today, the court dismissed Shafee’s application for leave to appeal against a Court of Appeal decision not to allow him to represent himself together with a co-counsel in his defamation suit against the lawyer Tommy Thomas, the ex-judge VC George, and the Malaysian Bar.
The three-member panel chaired by Chief Justice of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Melanjum told the parties involved to resolve the matter.
After an adjournment, the parties told the court that they have agreed to allow Shafee to represent himself, on condition that he adheres to the court’s procedures for doing so.
Shafee is also to file an application at the Court of Appeal to have a “McKenzie friend” to assist him, and the other parties would not object to this. A McKenzie friend is a person who assists a litigant in court, but is not allowed to address the court.
Following the resolution, Richard dismissed the case with no orders to cost.
Speaking to Malaysiakini later, Tommy’s lawyer S Ambiga said the next hearing date for Shafee’s defamation case would be set later today.
The High Court in Kuala Lumpur had previously ruled against Shafee in the suit, and he is now appealing against the decision.
Shafee is suing Tommy and George for filing a motion against him at the Malaysian Bar annual general meeting in 2015.
The duo had filed the motion to complain of Shafee’s conduct at a public talk where he had spoken about the Sodomy II trial.
https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/388273
…
26 May 2016
Malay Mail OnlineVerified account @themmailonline
Shafee loses defamation suit after court rules Bar motion truthful
KUALA LUMPUR, May 26 — The High Court ruled today against Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah in his defamation lawsuit against the Malaysian Bar, its former president and two lawyers, saying the duo’s move to censure the Umno lawyer for his conduct post-Sodomy II was justified.
Although High Court judge Datuk Hanipah Farikullah found the words in the lawyers’ motion against Shafee at the Bar’s annual general meeting (AGM) last year defamatory, she said the duo had successfully proved there was substantial truth in the motion.
“Hence to my mind, there was some truth, substantive truth in the motion filed by the first defendant and second defendant,” she said when ruling that senior lawyers Tommy Thomas and Tan Sri VC George had succeeded in their defence of justification.
Hanipah highlighted that Shafee had clearly spoken as a lawyer that was still holding the Attorney-General’s Chambers’ appointment to represent the prosecution in Anwar’s case at a “political forum” organised by an Umno-linked organisation.
She noted that Shafee had claimed he was trying to debunk Anwar’s political conspiracy theory and defend the Federal Court’s decision to convict the latter of sodomy, but pointed out that the apex court had not accepted that theory in its judgment.
She also said Shafee had admitted that he had during the Kelana Jaya forum attributed comments to Anwar that were not actual statements by Anwar, besides noting that Shafee had criticised Anwar’s legal team and the politician’s exercise of his right to give a statement from the dock instead of being cross-examined.
Hanipah said Shafee should not have publicly shared “in camera evidence” or evidence that the Sodomy II trial judge had said must not be disclosed outside the courts.
“But for an advocate and solicitor and deputy public prosecutor holding a fiat, to my mind, the camera evidence should not have been divulged to the public. It was not disputed that it was a public forum and online streamed, and also there was members of the public,” the judge said.
Hanipah also found that the two lawyers had successfully proven their alternative defence of fair comment as Shafee’s conduct was of public interest.
As for the defence of qualified privilege raised by all four sued by Shafee, Hanipah said they had shown they had the legal and moral duty to both present and receive the motion while Shafee had failed to show they had malice in doing so.
“Based on the facts and circumstances, the first defendant and the second defendant being senior members of the Bar had interest to present the motion to the Malaysian Bar and Malaysian Bar had interest to receive as it concerns misconduct by one of the members,” he said.
Hanipah found that Shafee had failed to prove his claim of tort of conspiracy to defame him as he had not shown there was an agreement to do so.
…
weehingthong 
Pingback: Muhammad Shafee Abdullah: Questions seeking answers… | weehingthong