[ad_1]
KUALA LUMPUR (THE STAR / ASIA NEWS NETWORK) – The leader of the Malaysian opposition, Anwar Ibrahim, and the Board of Pardons of the Federal Territories have not filed a lawsuit filed by a lawyer to challenge the legality of the royal pardon that Datuk Seri Anwar received two years ago.
High Court Judge Akhtar Tahir made the decision on Monday (September 21) after finding that Mr. Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz has locus standi as a member of the public and attorney to file the original subpoena.
In his ruling, the judge said that the King of Malaysia had performed his executive role by granting clemency to Mr. Anwar and therefore involved procedures and laws where the exercise of executive powers could be challenged.
“If it involves the executive branch, why can’t it be heard and tried in court?” the judge said Monday.
The court also said there were probable issues that needed to be heard in their entirety, adding that the case was not a clear matter that could be summarily dismissed.
Judge Akhtar said it was appropriate to initiate the procedure as evidence could be requested, including oral evidence.
“This is a civil matter that must be proven on the balance of probabilities. I am dismissing the (crossed out) requests of both defendants without order as to costs,” he said.
Then, the court set February 18 next year to handle the case, and the trial dates were set from March 24 to 26.
Meanwhile, Khairul Azam’s lawyer, Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla, told reporters that the court was of the opinion that his client had locus standi to bring the action, as it had to do with the federal Constitution.
“As a member of the public, my client has the right to bring the action. And not only that, he is a qualified person, an attorney and capable of presenting his case,” Haniff said.
Attorney J. Leela and Senior Federal Counsel Natra Idris represented Mr. Anwar and the Board of Pardons, respectively.
On February 26, Khairul Azam, 43, sued the Board of Pardons and Anwar for the latter’s royal pardon in connection with his conviction for sodomy involving Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
Mr. Khairul Azam, who is the sole plaintiff, appointed the Board of Pardons and Mr. Anwar, 73, as the first and second defendants, respectively.
In his statement of claim, Khairul Azam said that on February 10, 2015, the Federal Court had upheld a conviction against Anwar in connection with the sodomy charge.
The Federal Court, Malaysia’s highest court, had upheld the five-year prison sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal against Mr. Anwar, who then went to jail to serve his sentence.
However, on May 9, 2018, after the fourteenth general election and the formation of a new government, the plaintiff claimed that various illegal and unconstitutional steps were taken to ensure that Anwar was pardoned and released from his sentence.
Khairul Azam claimed that two days after the formation of the new government at the federal level and before the formation of a full cabinet lineup under article 43 of the federal Constitution, former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad announced that Anwar received a full pardon. by the King, who was then Sultan Muhammad V of Kelantan.
After clemency, Mr. Anwar was able to participate in a by-election and was elected deputy from Port Dickson.
The plaintiff maintains that this was against the Constitution, since articles 42 (4) and (5) of the federal Constitution establish that the King’s power of pardon must be with the advice of the Board of Pardons.
The plaintiff claimed that it was impossible for a valid Board of Pardons to meet properly two days after the formation of a new government.
Mr. Khairul Azam requests a statement that the Board of Pardons was not legally formed, so his advice to pardon the second defendant, Mr. Anwar, was illegal and invalid from the start.
He also requested a statement that the clemency granted to Mr. Anwar was illegal and invalid.
On May 13, Mr. Anwar filed the strike request on the grounds that Mr. Khairul Azam has no locus standi to bring the action and that it was frivolous, an embarrassment and an abuse of the judicial process.
[ad_2]
