KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 12 — The High Court here has fixed October 19 to hear Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s application to challenge the Prisons Department’s decision not to allow him to attend Dewan Rakyat proceedings.
Judge Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid set the date when the case was brought for mention before him today in the presence of Federal counsel M. Kogilambigai, who acted for the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, representing Najib.
Earlier, Kogilambigai informed the court that she needs at least one week to study the former prime minister’s application for leave for judicial review.
“We need time to study the submissions and we will inform the court whether the AGC will raise any objection on that matter,” she said adding that there is no urgency anymore over the matter as Parliament was dissolved two days ago.
Muhammad Shafee, however, said the matter was urgent there are there are serious legal issues to be determined by the court, including whether Najib can be nominated as a candidate and be present at the nomination centre where he would be contesting.
“I suggest that the application be heard this Friday (October 14),” the lawyer said.
On October 5, Najib, 69, filed the application naming the government, the Minister of Home Affairs and the Commissioner General of Prison as the first to third respondents seeking an order to quash the decision of the third respondent to not allow him access to his officers/aides for the purposes of parliamentary, legislative and constituent work.
He is also seeking an order to set aside the decision to not allow him to attend Parliament on the scheduled dates of sitting.
In his supporting affidavit, Najib said the decision of the first and third respondents (the government and Commissioner General of Prison) in rejecting his application on the grounds of security was conveyed to him via the Kajang Prison Office on September 28.
Najib also stated that the first and third respondents’ refusal to allow him access to his officers and aides for the purposes of parliamentary and constituent matters and the subsequent inaction by the second respondent was an exercise of unreasonableness or irrationality.
He said pursuant to Article 59 of the Federal Constitution, he has a constitutional obligation to discharge his duties effectively and with substance as a member of parliament, in the representation of the constituents of Pekan.
— Bernama
