Thomas failed to exercise discretion as AG, says ex-arbitration centre head
N Sundra Rajoo (left) dismissed Tommy Thomas’ assertion that there was a ‘strong case’ to convict him.
KUALA LUMPUR: A former Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) director, who is suing Tommy Thomas for misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution, said the then attorney-general (AG) had failed to properly exercise his discretion under the Federal Constitution.
N Sundra Rajoo said the Federal Court last year had concluded that Thomas had acted in excess of authority in failing to give due regard to his (Sundra’s) immunity.
“The plaintiff (Sundra) denies that Thomas had properly exercised his discretion under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution,” he said in reply to Thomas’ defence filed early this month.
Thomas, who held the office of AG between June 2018 and February 2020, said that in his capacity as public prosecutor, he had the discretion under the constitution and Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code to frame three charges brought against Sundra.
As such, he said, he could not be held liable.
Sundra, in his defence, said Thomas also did not act honestly as he was aware that the former enjoyed immunity from prosecution.
He dismissed Thomas’s assertion that there was a “strong case” for conviction over the charges.
Sundra said by Thomas’s own conduct, he recognised that a waiver had to be given by the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organisation (AALCO) and not (Sundra’s successor) the late Vinayak Pradhan.
AALCO is the parent body of AIAC.
He said it was similarly not open to Thomas to contend that his (Sundra) immunity violated the equality clause under Article 8 of the constitution.
Sundra, in a separate response to 12 other defendants, including the government, said they had breached the law in arresting and detaining him.
Sundra filed the suit last October for false imprisonment, breach of constitutional rights and conspiracy to injure through unlawful means.
Also named as plaintiffs were former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Mohamad Shukri Abdull, several MACC officers and deputy public prosecutors.
Sundra said he should not have faced prosecution as he enjoyed immunity for acts done as AIAC director, a contention which the Federal Court accepted in judicial review proceedings heard last year.
The apex court said Sundra’s functional immunity included immunity from criminal proceedings and that he had acted to safeguard the interests of AIAC and AALCO.
Sundra was charged in the Kuala Lumpur sessions court on March 16, 2019, with three counts of criminal breach of trust amounting to RM1.1 million, allegedly committed at AIAC’s premises in Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin here between Aug 17 and Dec 8, 2018.
KUALA LUMPUR: A former Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) director, who is suing Tommy Thomas for misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution, said the then attorney-general (AG) had failed to properly exercise his discretion under the Federal Constitution.
N Sundra Rajoo said the Federal Court last year had concluded that Thomas had acted in excess of authority in failing to give due regard to his (Sundra’s) immunity.
“The plaintiff (Sundra) denies that Thomas had properly exercised his discretion under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution,” he said in reply to Thomas’ defence filed early this month.
Thomas, who held the office of AG between June 2018 and February 2020, said that in his capacity as public prosecutor, he had the discretion under the constitution and Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code to frame three charges brought against Sundra.
As such, he said, he could not be held liable.
Sundra, in his defence, said Thomas also did not act honestly as he was aware that the former enjoyed immunity from prosecution.
He dismissed Thomas’s assertion that there was a “strong case” for conviction over the charges.
Sundra said by Thomas’s own conduct, he recognised that a waiver had to be given by the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organisation (AALCO) and not (Sundra’s successor) the late Vinayak Pradhan.
AALCO is the parent body of AIAC.
He said it was similarly not open to Thomas to contend that his (Sundra) immunity violated the equality clause under Article 8 of the constitution.
Sundra, in a separate response to 12 other defendants, including the government, said they had breached the law in arresting and detaining him.
Sundra filed the suit last October for false imprisonment, breach of constitutional rights and conspiracy to injure through unlawful means.
Also named as plaintiffs were former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Mohamad Shukri Abdull, several MACC officers and deputy public prosecutors.
Sundra said he should not have faced prosecution as he enjoyed immunity for acts done as AIAC director, a contention which the Federal Court accepted in judicial review proceedings heard last year.
The apex court said Sundra’s functional immunity included immunity from criminal proceedings and that he had acted to safeguard the interests of AIAC and AALCO.
Sundra was charged in the Kuala Lumpur sessions court on March 16, 2019, with three counts of criminal breach of trust amounting to RM1.1 million, allegedly committed at AIAC’s premises in Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin here between Aug 17 and Dec 8, 2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment