Shafee clarifies 'Nazi-Germany' remark
Published: May 30, 2025 2:17 PM
Updated: 4:22 PM
Summary
- Lawyer Shafee Abdullah clarifies that his “Nazi-Germany” remark yesterday was intended to educate the public during an exchange with a reporter, not undermine the judiciary.
- His law firm says the remark explains what constitutes a “judicial decision” according to the principle of natural justice.
Lawyer Shafee Abdullah has issued a statement clarifying his “Nazi-Germany” comment made yesterday, in a press conference outside the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
In a statement issued by his law firm, Shafee and Co, his legal team explained that Shafee’s remark was made during an exchange with a journalist.
“The statement made by our client that: ‘It is not valid, it is not a judicial decision. A judicial decision means you hear both parties, since when we do a Nazi-Germany kind of hearing. You must hear both parties’ was made during an exchange with a reporter, and must be understood in its proper context as follows:
The firm said that the comment was not intended to undermine the judiciary or any particular judge, “but for the purpose of educating the public (reporter) on the essential characteristics of a proper judicial decision under the rule of law, and to reinforce, not undermine, public confidence in the courts by upholding the principles that ensure the legitimacy and integrity of judicial outcomes.”
“We reiterate that our client has never described the judge’s ruling on the clarification of the stay order as a decision akin to those made during the Nazi-Germany era.
“The remark in question was made solely in the context of explaining the meaning and essence of a ‘judicial decision’ (as opposed to an administrative decision), namely, that it must involve a hearing where both parties are given the opportunity to be heard, in line with fundamental principles of natural justice.
“Further, our client has also never compared the ongoing judicial proceedings to a hearing to Nazi-era governance. In any case, the AGC had requested for clarification to be done in open court,” the firm explained.
In a statement issued by his law firm, Shafee and Co, his legal team explained that Shafee’s remark was made during an exchange with a journalist.
“The statement made by our client that: ‘It is not valid, it is not a judicial decision. A judicial decision means you hear both parties, since when we do a Nazi-Germany kind of hearing. You must hear both parties’ was made during an exchange with a reporter, and must be understood in its proper context as follows:
- The reporter had asked whether there had already been a court order stating that a stay applied to future proceedings.
- In response, our client clarified our position, asserting that such an order was not valid (at most it is an administrative order) in the absence of a hearing involving both parties for clarification and that we will address this matter before her ladyship during the case management dated May 30, 2025.
- The reporter then stubbornly insisted that the order still constituted a “judicial decision”.
- Our client responded by offering a general interpretation of what constitutes a judicial decision, namely, that it must involve both parties being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The comment was intended to underscore that a decision made without affording both parties an opportunity to be heard cannot be properly characterised as judicial in nature. It is here our client said, in the absence of a proper hearing, “...it is not a judicial decision. A judicial decision means you hear both parties, since when we do a Nazi-Germany kind of hearing”.
The firm said that the comment was not intended to undermine the judiciary or any particular judge, “but for the purpose of educating the public (reporter) on the essential characteristics of a proper judicial decision under the rule of law, and to reinforce, not undermine, public confidence in the courts by upholding the principles that ensure the legitimacy and integrity of judicial outcomes.”
“We reiterate that our client has never described the judge’s ruling on the clarification of the stay order as a decision akin to those made during the Nazi-Germany era.
“The remark in question was made solely in the context of explaining the meaning and essence of a ‘judicial decision’ (as opposed to an administrative decision), namely, that it must involve a hearing where both parties are given the opportunity to be heard, in line with fundamental principles of natural justice.
“Further, our client has also never compared the ongoing judicial proceedings to a hearing to Nazi-era governance. In any case, the AGC had requested for clarification to be done in open court,” the firm explained.
Bullshit .
ReplyDeleteShafie Abdullah should be referred to the Bar Council disciplinary committee for conduct bring disrepute to the Malaysian legal profession
Nazi Germany was an evil regime that condemned millions of innocent people to their death in Gas Chambers purely on the basis of their racial or religious backgrounds.