|
|
[Tempatan]
Dr M drags Najib to court, seeks RM2.6b in damages
[Copy link]
|
|
|
It remains to be seen whether the case will have any effect against Najib, who has taken a number of heavily criticised steps to tamp down the affair.
These included sacking Cabinet members, including his deputy prime minister, who had called for transparency and replacing Malaysia's attorney-general with an appointee who abruptly halted his predecessor's investigations.
Whistle-blowers have been arrested or faced other threats, while media outlets reporting on the allegations also have come under pressure, raising growing concerns over rights and free speech.
Pahlawan la sangat ~ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harap Najib Kepit terkencing dlm seluar sambil tercirit2. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jagendas replied at 23-3-2016 01:13 PM
kuasa peguam dlm tgn najib
itu yang dipraktik zaman madey dulu
now barulah dikatakan senjata makan ...
Itulah sebabnya Dr M memilih utk saman secara sivil. Supaya tak perlu melalui Peguam Negara mcm dlm mana2 pertuduhan jenayah. Paling2 pun AG jd peguambela PM je dlm kes ni walaupun secara peribadi saya berpendapat tak patut AG jd peguambela dlm civil suit sungguhpun melibatkan elemen public officer dalam tort of misfeasance in public office. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kaka almond loyer ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nirman replied at 23-3-2016 12:58 PM
About time! Now this will be interesting because it will show the world where the judicial system is ...
It's rather difficult for even an independent minded judge to wiggle around the strict interpretation of locus standi in Malaysia. Even Justice Gopal Sri Ram, who usually applied progressive interpretation, could not do so in the case of Kajing Tubek in relation to locus standi. One must remember that the court of the first instance in this Mahathir & Ors v. Najib is the High Court, which means it is bound by the decision of higher courts on locus standi.
As you would have known, in Malaysia, a plaintiff in a civil suit must be able to show that he is personally affected by the defendant and that he is affected over and above other people. As such, there is little room, if at all, for public interest litigation in Malaysia for now. If one looks at the case of Lim Kit Siang v. UEM circa 1987, the court ruled that LKS didn't have locus standi to sue even though he asserted that he was suing in the capacity of a tax payer, Member of Parliament, Leader of the Opposition etc. In Dr M's case, he's only asserting that he's a tax payer.
I'm of course looking forward to a progressive decision which will put Malaysia at par with others such as the UK and India that have moved away from a severely restrictive interpretation a long time ago. However, I don't see how a High Court judge could rule in that direction given the existing binding precedence, but who knows what an resourceful judge could come up with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ya saya
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pd pundapat kaka brp persen kes ini akan masok court? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 25-3-2016 01:31 AM
