KUALA LUMPUR (Feb 19): Lawyers should not be a subject of attack by authorities for representing their clients, senior lawyer Rosli Dahlan said in his judicial review bid against the Inspector General of Police Tan Sri Razarudin Husain @ Abd Rasid and eight others, including the government.
Rosli, in addressing High Court judge Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid, said he was counsel for Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia and also for i-Serve Online Mall Sdn Bhd but had been subjected to actions by the authorities.
“When former prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin was acquitted (of criminal breach of trust), all actions (taken by the authorities) happened to my firm and myself. There are also false allegations against me of stealing RM7 billion 1MDB (1Malaysia Development Bhd) money or [of] compromising in the 1MDB deal.
The allegations led to the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission’s raid on Rosli’s office last Oct 6. The MACC filed an application to retrieve 1MDB documents which the agency later withdrew.
“Now, the police are taking over in freezing my bank accounts and trust fund. In their investigation, it does not say [that] I am the prime suspect but the investigation [resulted] in the freezing order, and my arrest follows an AirAsia police report against i-Serve, where I was counsel in 2022,” he added.
Rosli noted that he has yet to be furnished with a copy of the AirAsia police report that allegedly implicated him.
He added that he is seeking justice, flagging past incidents involving then High Court judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, who was also investigated by the MACC.
Rosli further cited the decision in the Haris Fathillah and two others versus the MACC case, in which the Federal Court ruled that courts must be proactive in determining such abuse, as [with] the apex court.
“Any abuse of those powers such as using them for collateral purposes, not only constitutes possible offences such as abuse of power or obstruction of justice, but also constitutes actionable complaints through the courts’ statutory review powers,” Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said in her judgement in the Haris case.
Freeze of bank accounts revoked
Meanwhile, Rosli’s counsel Harvinderjit Singh said the action by the police had resulted in his client being arrested, his banking accounts frozen, and a travel ban in which Rosli was not informed of actions by the authorities.
Harvinderjit said that the police had only rescinded the freezing order on his 10 bank accounts last month, though the police had continued to freeze some of his Amanah Saham Nasional Bhd account.
The lawyer added that this showed the alleged illegality of police actions, in which in any money laundering investigations, the police should immediately investigate rather than freeze the accounts first, as decided by Parliament, according to the 2014 amendment of the Anti Money Laundering, Anti Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activity 2001 (AMLA).
“My client’s right to life and property as enshrined in the constitution had been violated when they withdrew the freezing order,” Harvinderjit said.
“We have shown enough reasons for leave (permission) for judicial review to be granted,” Harvinderjit said.
Rosli filed the judicial review application in December, seeking among other matters, an order for certiorari (judicial review) against the police and the government for their purported action in linking him with a complaint lodged by AirAsia on i-Serve, which has no relation to him.
Cannot impede investigation process, and wrong mode of legal action
Meanwhile, senior federal counsel Rahazlan Affandi Abdul Rahim, who appeared with Nurliana Ismail, who opposed the court in granting leave, said a judicial review application is the wrong mode to initiate the court action, as Rosli should have filed a writ since the case also included defamation.
Rahazlan also emphasised that investigative action is not amenable to judicial review, as it is a collateral attempt to pre-empt or impede ongoing criminal investigation.
“This is to prevent abuse of the court process. Much has been canvassed that the arrest, detention, [and] remand [are] tainted with bad faith, mala fide and conspiracy, and [the] allegation of defamation. What the applicant avers is based on private law action that requires private law remedy via the filing of a writ action.
This should be done through filing of writ, rather than initiating a public law action via a judicial review, he stressed.
Rahazlan added that the court should not listen to the merits of the application at this stage, and pointed out that Rosli citing the Haris Fathillah case was not proper, as that case was based on a referral directly to the apex court and not a judicial review.
Ahmad Kamal said he would deliver his decision on whether to grant leave or otherwise to Rosli’s application on April 3.