Najib not a ‘public officer’ an oxymoron

Court strikes out 1MDB-related misfeasance suit against Najib

Gerard Lourdesamy: So the prime minister is immune from any civil suit? Even the Agong is not afforded such protection.

Did the judicial commissioner consider the definition of “officer” in section 2 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 that is applicable to a claim in tort under section 5 of the Act in respect of acts or omissions committed by an officer of the government?

Misfeasance in public office is a common law tort. So why the need to establish locus standi? This suit was not a judicial review application.

The essence of the tort is where there is misuse or abuse of power by a public officer. Any aggrieved person, which includes taxpayers and ordinary citizens, can bring such a claim.

Proving it is another matter. So how did the judicial commissioner conclude on mere affidavit evidence that this was a plain and obvious case to strike out?

What the judiciary is saying is that a sitting prime minister cannot be sued for alleged misuse or abuse of power in law, and that the only remedy is at the ballot box.

Quigonbond: Our class action law is flawed. This is another reason we need reform to allow for a broader interpretation of locus standi.

We also need another amendment to the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 to right the wrong that a politician in an executive position is not considered a public officer.

Kim Quek: This is an allegedly central figure in the world’s largest and most notorious kleptocracy case.

However, in Malaysia, even a civil suit against him is struck off in court on frivolous grounds without even a hearing, despite the submission of a mountain of evidence in meticulous detail.

And this is the same Malaysia, where its newly and dubiously crowned chief justice has proclaimed to the world that the Malaysian judiciary is independent.

What more do we need to say about the independence of the Malaysian judiciary?

FellowMalaysian: The High Court in Kuala Lumpur has thrown out DAP lawmaker Tony Pua’s misfeasance in public office suit brought against Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

It is infuriatingly trite for judicial commissioner Faizah Jamaludin to dismiss Pua’s misfeasance suit against Najib using the same old hoary excuse.

It appears that there is a paucity of judicial imagination among the fleet of judges at all levels of our Malaysian judiciary when a similarly-worded claim that “Najib is not a public figure” was used in Court of Appeal’s August 2017 summary dismissal in denying a similar suit of misfeasance brought about by former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, former Umno division leader Khairuddin Abu Hassan and former Bersatu supreme council member Anina Saadudin against Najib.

Obviously, it has not occurred to Faizah Jamaludin that resorting to the same recycled reply will render her verdict banal, and that her action will be seen as nothing more than that of a “copying machine”.

Anonymous_40bb: I believe very strongly that the term “public officer” must be defined with clarity within its context within this country.

If we search for the term “public officer” on Google, this comes out – “Definition of public officer: A person who has been legally elected or appointed to office and who exercises governmental functions”.

The prime minister is a public officer but he is also the chairperson of the advisory board of 1MDB. As the chairperson of this board, is he or is he not liable to the misfeasance charge lodged against him by Pua?

Did the court throw out the case because of the technicalities of the “public officer” term, or because the prime minister was only the chairperson of the advisory board and is not liable for misfeasance?

The definition of misfeasance is wilful inappropriate action or intentional incorrect action or advice. Should the misfeasance that allegedly took place within the prime minister’s capacity as chairperson of the 1MDB advisory board be the next course of action?

Skippy: We must be the only country in the world where the highest leader of the country (with democratic elections, no less) is not a public official.

I thought that applies only to monarchies, military juntas and dictatorships? What a mess.

Anonymous_1371726498: A prime minister who also holds the position of finance minister, whose salary is paid with taxpayers’ money, is not a public officer.

Why is this so? I just don’t understand. Which other democratic countries practice this, I wonder?

Anonymous 539281478077880: Indeed, what type of judiciary system are we practising in Malaysia? We simply can’t figure out who is a public officer and who is not.

In this context, I feel the “double standard procedure” is followed by our “great judges”. One rule for the government of the day and another for the opposition.

If this goes on like this, all cases brought against the wrongdoers of the ruling party will “automatically not win”.

RR: It is high time the law is amended to include PM, DPM and ministers as public officers, like the MBs and CMs.

There appears to be a mockery of our legal system when these top officials are not made accountable for whatever they do.

Wira: Malaysian Official 1 (MO1) is not a public officer? What is he? Why is he still drawing a public salary and allowances?

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.