10 November 2017
Shafee’s belated denial raises more questions, say Anwar’s lawyers
Senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah had ample time to respond to the allegation that he was paid RM9.5 million by Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, according to Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyers.
In a press statement, N Surendran and Latheefa Koya pointed out that Sarawak Report first made the allegation on May 31 whereas their client filed his suit based on the claim on June 9.
“Thus, Shafee could have easily responded before the suit was filed. Shafee’s belated comments simply leave us with more unanswered questions.
“Shafee also claimed he had wanted to make a comment on the allegation earlier he could not do so because the suit by Anwar was filed and pending in court. This is not an acceptable reason for not having said anything earlier,” Surendran…and Latheefa said.
Meanwhile, Surendran and Latheefa also claimed that Shafee’s denial of payment was not included in his affidavit.
Malaysiakini is unable to independently verify this as it has not obtained a copy of the affidavit and has contacted Shafee for comment.
8 November 2017
Nonsense! Shafee breaks silence on ‘Najib paid him RM9.5m’ claim
Prominent lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah has finally broken his silence on Sarawak Report‘s allegation that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak paid him RM9.5 million.
Shafee, who acted as chief prosecutor in Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy II trial when the matter was heard in the higher courts, described the allegation as “nonsense”.
“I wanted to make a comment, but the suit was filed and hence I could not comment.
“I filed an application to strike out and also the affidavit in support and I can say now it is total nonsense. It is also there in the affidavit which I filed,” he told Malaysiakini when met at the Kuala Lumpur High Court today.
12 July 2017
Shafee rubbishes Anwar’s claim of involvement in CJ’s extension
The lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah has rubbished PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim’s claim that he was involved in the extension of the tenures of Chief Justice Md Raus Sharif and Court of Appeal President Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin.
“Anwar can say whatever he likes. I’m not responding to that because I think it is a lot of rubbish. That’s it,” he told Malaysiakini curtly when asked about the allegation.
He was met outside the Federal Court in Putrajaya today.
Meanwhile, when asked about the allegation that he had been paid RM9.5 million out of Najib’s personal bank account at a time when he was acting as the government’s special prosecutor for Anwar’s Sodomy II trial, Shafee said the matter is already in court and he would respond in court.
“It is a lot of rubbish because the matter is in court. So I will see Anwar in court about the RM9.5 (million). Let’s see if he’s right,” he said.
The High Court in Kuala Lumpur had previously ordered Shafee to respond to Anwar, who had filed an application to set aside his Sodomy II conviction.
Among others, Justice Kamaludin Md Said had told Shafee to submit his affidavit-in-reply by today.
11 July 2017
Was Shafee involved in CJ’s extension, asks Anwar
He claims he has received information that the prominent lawyer has played integral role in preparing the legal viewpoint and basis for the extensions.
PETALING JAYA: PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim wants Prime Minister Najib Razak to reveal whether or not prominent lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah was involved in the extension of tenure for Chief Justice Raus Sharif and Court of Appeal President Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin.
In a statement issued today, Anwar claimed he had received information that Shafee had played an integral role in the extensions.
“I understand that Shafee was involved in preparing the legal viewpoint and basis to decide on Raus and Zulkefli’s extension of service,” he said.
“In view of this, Najib must immediately confirm if this is true or otherwise.”
He said this was especially pertinent since the three-year and two-year extensions for Raus and Zulkefli respectively had met with negative feedback as to whether the move had violated the Federal Constitution.
He also noted that former Federal Court judges and the Malaysian Bar had interpreted the move as breaching the constitution.
“This is a critical issue as it involves the people’s right to an independent judiciary. If (the claim is) true, this must be disclosed to the public in a transparent manner,” he said.
8 July 2017
Extension of CJ’s tenure: It’s happened before
Why not utilise the best legal brains for the job, considering the severe shortage of top judicial brains in the apex court?
Muhammad Shafee Abdullah
Almost everyone thought Chief Justice Raus Sharif recommended himself and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin to be extended as “additional judges” under Article 122(1A) of the Federal Constitution (FC).
He did not. The former CJ, on the verge of retiring and in possibly one of his last official acts, recommended both judges to be appointed “additional judges”.
He may have been influenced by the fact that the two top judges after him would have had only four months and six months respectively to hold the top two posts.
With that sort of limited time frame, they would have hardly been able to warm their new seats, what more execute a plan of judicial policy.
The former CJ must have felt bad about this “flash in the pan” tenure as compared to his, which was more than six years. Moreover, he had a few months ago used the same article to bring back a recently retired Federal Court judge, Jefferey Tan, to the Federal Court, way after 66 years and six months of age, for an two additional years.
So this provision has been utilised twice before the current invocations, the first being for Federal Court judge Justice McIntyre in 1965. McIntyre was brought back as there was, and still is, a severe shortage of top judicial brains in the apex court.
To be a good apex judge, clinical intelligence and knowledge alone is not sufficient. One needs “emotional intelligence” as well, a rare combination of talents.
By the way, for additional judges – and many do not know this – the prime minister has no role to play. It’s between the serving CJ and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, in this very rare instance as provided for in the constitution, need not consult or be advised by the prime minister. His only considerations are those that the serving CJ expressed to him in writing under Article 122(1A).
But for them to continue in their current posts beyond their retirement age, they have to be technically appointed as such by the Yang di-Pertuan Agung on the advice of the prime minister after consulting the Conference of Rulers under Article 122(B). Of course, the prime minister would have to consider the opinion of the Judicial Appointment Committee.
Muhammad Shafee Abdullah is a senior lawyer.
With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s (or organisation’s) personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.
10 June 2017
Simon Thong Retweeted Lim Kit Siang
Is silence really golden in this case? https://weehingthong.org/2017/06/09/malay-mail-shafee-loses-defamation-suit-after-court-rules-bar-motion-truthful/ …
Simon Thong added,
9 June 2017
Shafee: I’ll issue a statement, but not today
Senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah has said that he would issue a statement on the allegation Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak paid him RM9.5 million.
This is after reporters quizzed him on the matter at the Jalan Duta Court Complex in Kuala Lumpur today.
“I will issue a statement, but not today,” he was quoted as saying by FMT. Following this, the lawyer got into his car and left the court complex.
Last week, Sarawak Report claimed that Shafee had received the payment in two tranches – Sept 11, 2013 and Feb 17, 2014.
The lawyer had acted as chief prosecutor in jailed opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy II case when the matter was heard in the higher courts.
Anwar is currently serving a five-year prison sentence after the Federal Court upheld his conviction on Feb 10, 2015.