[ad_1]
KUALA LUMPUR: Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (pix, right) and the federal government have insisted that their action to terminate Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali’s contract as Attorney General (AG) in 2018 was valid and in accordance with the provisions of the law and asked the court to dismiss the position of Mohamed I turned off. lawsuit against them.
In a defense statement filed yesterday (November 12), both defendants stated that there was no abuse of power by the first defendant, Dr. Mahathir, regarding the termination of Mohamed Apandi as AG and the termination of his contract as legal officer.
Dr. Mahathir and the federal government submitted the defense statement, which was signed by the Senior Federal Counselor of the Attorney General’s Office, in response to a claim of RM2.2 million brought against them by Mohamed Apandi.
The defendants said that the claim of Mohamed Apandi, the plaintiff, lacked merit and was a misrepresentation of the law.
“Furthermore, there is nothing in the plaintiff’s allegation to constitute that the latter was awarded exemplary and / or punitive damages,” the defendants said.
Dr. Mahathir and the federal government also denied all statements contained in the plaintiff’s statement of claim, saying that, in any event, the plaintiff was not entitled to the requested exemptions.
“We humbly ask that the plaintiff’s claims with costs be dismissed,” they said.
The case was filed today for online case management with Deputy High Court Registrar Norhatini Abd Hamid.
Attorney Datuk Baljit Singh Sidhu, representing Mohamed Apandi, when contacted, said that the court had set December 3 for the handling of the case for the plaintiff to submit a response to the defense statement of the defendants.
On October 13, Mohamed Apandi filed a lawsuit naming Dr. Mahathir and the government as the first and second defendants respectively, seeking, among others, a statement that his removal from office as attorney general two years ago years was illegal.
In his application brief, Mohamed Apandi, who was a Federal Court judge before being appointed Attorney General in 2015, also requests a statement that the first defendant had committed a crime and misconduct in public office and a statement that the first accused had caused and induced the breach of contract between him and the government.
You also want a statement that there was a breach of Article 145 of the Federal Constitution on your termination and a statement that your termination as AG was not in accordance with the law and therefore illegal.
Mohamed Apandi requests special damages in the amount of 2,233,599.36 ringgit, general damages, exemplary and / or punitive damages, costs and other reparations that the court deems appropriate.
In his complaint brief, Mohamed Apandi said through a letter dated July 27, 2015 by the Chief Secretary of the Government, the complainant was informed that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had consented to his appointment as AG with effect from from July 27, 2015. until July 26, 2018.
The former attorney general alleged that on April 6, 2018, the Chief Secretary of the Government had notified him that on March 30, 2018, Yang di-Pertuan Agong had consented that his appointment be extended for another three years from July 27, 2018 and would expire on July 26, 2021.
Mohamed Apandi further claimed that Dr. Mahathir, who was appointed Prime Minister on May 10, 2018, began issuing statements that questioned the plaintiff’s professional integrity.
“The first defendant then instructed the chief secretary to the second defendant to relay the first defendant’s instruction for the plaintiff to take an unregistered leave for a period of 30 days from May 14, 2018 to June 14, 2018 “, said.
The former attorney general alleged that the instruction given by Dr. Mahathir was illegal and stated that, in accordance with article 145 (5) of the Federal Constitution, he, at all material times, will occupy the position at the discretion of the Yang di- Pertuan Agong.
Mohamed Apandi further claimed that Dr. Mahathir made biased statements against him personally and the Attorney General’s office, proposed the replacement of the plaintiff before proper termination by the legal authority that is the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, refused, ruled and he neglected to take advice from the AGC and request or cause third parties, including his own personal attorney, to use it to pressure the plaintiff to immediately resign from his position. – Called
[ad_2]
