Friday, October 15, 2021

Tommy Thomas and ex-MACC chief sued for ‘malicious prosecution’



Tommy Thomas and ex-MACC chief sued for ‘malicious prosecution’


N Sundra Rajoo alleges that he suffered loss of reputation, integrity, goodwill and income as a result of the charges levelled against him in court. (Bernama pic)

KUALA LUMPUR: The former head of a regional arbitration centre here has filed a suit against 11 people, including former attorney-general Tommy Thomas and former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief Mohamad Shukri Abdull for misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution.

Former Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) chairman N Sundra Rajoo also filed claims for false imprisonment, breach of his constitutional rights and conspiracy to injure through unlawful means.

In the statement of claim sighted by FMT, he said the incident led to loss of reputation, integrity, goodwill, liberty, dignity, and he endured mental suffering, humiliation and anxiety.

Sundra, who filed the suit in the High Court here yesterday through Messrs Cheok, Ng Lee Law Chambers, is asking RM3.6 million in special damages, and general, aggravated and exemplary damages to be assessed by the court.

He said the defendants were brought to notice that he was immune from any action.

This was affirmed when the High Court held in December 2019 that removing his immunity would be against the 2013 host country agreement signed between Putrajaya and the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organisation (AALCO).

It was also revealed that Wisma Putra had written to AALCO, the parent body of AIAC, to waive Sundra’s immunity but this was rejected by its secretary-general.

On April 30, a seven-member Federal Court bench chaired by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat affirmed the ruling by the High Court.

Sundra’s predicament started in October 2018 when a poison pen letter was sent to Shukri and later circulated among the legal fraternity, including Thomas, the attorney-general from June 2018 to February 2020.

He said that in November 2018, the MACC conducted a raid at the AIAC premises here while he was in Zurich, Switzerland, on official business.

According to Sundra, upon his return on Nov 20, the MACC arrested and kept him in custody in Putrajaya overnight and he was also denied access to legal representation.

He was produced before a magistrate the following day but a remand application was denied.

However, he said, the proceedings were stood down after Thomas’s aide Khong Hui Li spoke to one of his lawyers, Philip Koh.

Sundra said Thomas wanted him to resign as AIAC chairman immediately, which he did due to tremendous pressure.

He said the MACC continued their investigation despite his claim for immunity.

He was charged in the Kuala Lumpur sessions court on March 16, 2019 on three counts of criminal breach of trust (CBT) amounting to RM1.1 million for AIAC’s purchase of his books, which had already been approved by AALCO.

Sundra allegedly committed the offence at the AIAC premises on Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin here between Aug 17 and Dec 8 in 2018.

He said he was also subjected to false imprisonment by the MACC for 21 hours and MACC officers Mohd Adrian Zaiman Zainiar, Md Yusrin Md Yusof, Thomas and Shukri are liable jointly and severally for this breach.

The other MACC officers named are Md Yusrin Md Yusof, Mohd Fadhly Mohd Zamry, T Nesavan, G Sharan Raj, Hasmizzy Md Hasim, Kamal Baharain Omar and Mohd Zaki Mohd Salleh.

Sundra also named the MACC and the government as defendants to be vicariously liable for the act of the individuals.

He said Thomas, Shukri, Fadhly, Kamal, Khong and Zaki are liable jointly and severally as joint tortfeasors for the malicious prosecution.

Sundra added that Thomas and Shukri committed misfeasance in public office for the detention and prosecution, forced resignation, and for appointing the late Vinayak Pradhan as AIAC director.

He said all the plaintiffs violated his constitutional rights under Article 5(1) and 8 of the Federal Constitution and conspired to injure him through unlawful means.


1 comment:

  1. Far fetched stretch to sue the then AG.

    There is no absolute diplomatic immunity, especially since he is in his home country.
    Alleged Personal Misconduct is a very iffy area to claim diplomatic immunity.

    ReplyDelete