PUTRAJAYA (Feb 28): Lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah told the Federal Court on Tuesday (Feb 28) that the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (ASDB) had issued show-cause letters to Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, two other lawyers and senior counsel Hisyam Teh Poh Teik over their handling of Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s final appeal in the SRC International Sdn Bhd case.

Shafee named the two other lawyers to whom show-cause letters were issued as being Liew Teck Huat and Rueben Mathiavaranam.

He added that the client (the former PM) should not be faulted for the possible actions of the lawyers, citing the Legal Profession Act, which stipulates that action could be taken against lawyers, but not members of the public.

Zaid, who is a senior partner of Messrs Zaid Ibrahim, Suflan TH Liew and Partners (ZIST) along with Liew, who is the managing partner of the firm, and partner Rueben, in a Facebook posting last month revealed that he (Zaid) had received a show-cause letter following a complaint from the Bar Council.

However, as revealed by Shafee before the apex court hearing on Tuesday, show-cause letters were also given to Hisyam, Liew and Rueben.

Shafee reiterated that the lawyers may have excellent reason to fight the show-cause letters.

"They may have breached the rules of etiquette of lawyers, but they took the case because they thought they could bring a fresh perspective to the case and therefore should not be faulted for taking on the case," he said.

Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Datuk Abdul Rahman Sebli, who led the bench, replied that the matter of disciplinary action should be left with the ASDB.

Shafee further added that Hisyam was being professional in seeking an adjournment after the application regarding trial judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali was dismissed, as Hisyam did not prepare for the main appeal.

“I know the counsel (Hisyam) well, and I know his stand, and it would be against his principle to take on or proceed with the appeal if he is not prepared.

“Furthermore, it would be against the etiquette of lawyers in not preparing such appeals carefully. Hisyam was only thinking over this in asking for the adjournment to better prepare the case. It is only right for the court to grant the adjournment if even for a month,” Shafee added.

Shafee said the argument by the prosecution now — that granting an adjournment after the litigant changed the counsel would open the floodgates for other cases — is not appropriate.

“I know Hisyam, and he is highly professional, and would not like to be used or abused (for purposely seeking an adjournment),” the senior lawyer said.

After the previous bench led by Tengku Maimun dismissed the application regarding Mohd Nazlan, they had given Hisyam another three days to possibly prepare the matter.

However, after coming back to the apex court over the weekend, Hisyam indicated that he was not prepared to submit on the main grounds of the appeal, and applied to discharge himself which the apex court bench refused.

On Monday, Shafee denied that there was any attempt of possible mala fide (bad faith) by the defence to further derail the hearing of the appeal last August by seeking a postponement by way of the appointment of new solicitors and a change of counsel to Hisyam.

“Changing of counsels should not be viewed as Najib being recalcitrant. The court should afford Najib a fair trial,” Shafee added.

“Najib’s right to be heard was transgressed, when the court did not allow the adjournment (after the apex court heard and then dismissed the application regarding trial judge Mohd Nazlan),” the senior lawyer added.

The application was to concern trial judge Mohd Nazlan's alleged conflict of interest in hearing Najib's case, as Mohd Nazlan had previously worked in Maybank as its general counsel and purportedly had dealings with 1MDB.

Najib is seeking a review of his conviction and 12 years' jail sentence and RM210 million fine, after the five-member Federal Court bench led by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat upheld the decision of the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

Besides the complaint lodged by the Bar Council against the four lawyers, ZIST in November filed a suit against Malaysian Bar president Karen Cheah and the organisation for defamation over a release criticising their actions.

Hisyam had also indicated that he may decide to sue Cheah, following the statement that she issued over Najib's SRC case.

The hearing of the review continues in the afternoon.

Read also:
Apex court reserves judgement on Najib’s review application, decision before March 31
Zaid Ibrahim, two others sue M'sian Bar and its president for defamation, breach of statutory duty
Najib's defence denies 'something sinister' in seeking adjournment of SRC appeal