PUTRAJAYA (July 5): Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor’s lawyers filed a notice of motion to seek leave (permission) from the Federal Court to appeal over the June 22 Court of Appeal (COA) decision that dismissed her appeal to nullify her solar hybrid trial.
The motion with five questions of law was filed by her solicitors from Messrs Akberdin & Co on Tuesday (July 4).
This follows questions surrounding when the judicial review by Rosmah should have been filed to challenge the then senior deputy public prosecutor Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram's (now deceased) fiat.
The five questions are:-
- Whether the computation of the three months period under Order 53 Rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court 2012, should take effect after the applicant (Rosmah) has exhausted a similar application at the criminal court, ie after the decision of the Federal Court on May 27, 2022, in keeping with the phrase “when the decision is first communicated to the applicant” under the said rule?
- Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time under Order 53 Rule 3(7) of the said Rules of Court 2012, to file a judicial review application given that she has given good reasons under the said rule, that is to exhaust a similar application first at the criminal court.
- Bearing in mind that the primary issue in the judicial review application was the illegality of the criminal proceedings which rendered the entire criminal trial of the applicant to a nullity, whether the COA having regard to the overriding interest of justice and not only the technical compliance of Order 53 Rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court, ought to have granted an extension of time after invoking the three months date line to commence from May 21, 2021 (the third version of the fiat).
- Which of the two conflicting decisions in the case of Menteri Besar Pahang vs Seruan Gemilang Sdn Bhd, (2010) where one of the two judges decided that the computation of the three months period under Order 53 Rule 3(6) of the Rules of Court should take into effect from the Federal Court’s decision, and the other judges disagreed is preferable? As such, which would be the correct interpretation of “when the decision is first communicated to the applicant” under the said rule?
- Having made a finding that the High Court judge had erred in the decision that the leave application has to be filed within three months from Nov 15, 2018, the date Rosmah was charged in court, or within three months from the April 8, 2021 (the date the COA allowed her appeal) with the consent of the senior deputy public prosecutor for the applicant to obtain the first version of fiat dated July 8, 2020, whether the COA on its own motion impose a three months date line to commence from May 21, 2021, when the applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard on the new date? And the respondents had not raised the issue during submissions
On July 22, a three-member COA bench, ruled there is no merit in Rosmah’s appeal, where it ruled the judicial review application was filed out of time and there were no valid grounds for the court to exercise its discretion to grant an extension.
Rosmah’s lawyers had applied for her criminal appeal, scheduled to be heard from July 11 to 14 at the COA, to be adjourned pending the disposal of her leave to appeal and possibly the apex court to hear the merits of her appeal first.
The COA has fixed Friday (July 7) to hear the application to adjourn.
Rosmah, 71, had on Sept 1, last year been found guilty by the High Court in Kuala Lumpur on all three counts of graft relating to a solar hybrid project for 369 rural schools in Sarawak beginning 2016. For her guilt, she was sentenced to 10 years in jail and fined RM970 million.