DATO' SRI MOHD NAJIB ABD RAZAK v. PP & OTHER APPEALS (NO 2)

[2022] 6 MLRA 173
Federal Court, Putrajaya
Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ, Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim CJSS, Nallini Pathmanathan, Mary Lim Thiam Suan, Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah FCJJ
[Criminal Appeal Nos: 05(L)-289-12-2021, 05(L)-290-12-2021 & 05(L)-291-12-2021]
Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ, Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim CJSS, Nallini Pathmanathan, Mary Lim Thiam Suan, Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah FCJJ

BROAD GROUNDS

(Application for Adjournment)

Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ, Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim CJSS, Nallini Pathmanathan, Mary Lim Thiam Suan, Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah FCJJ:

Introduction

[1] Having dismissed the motions to adduce additional evidence, we directed parties to proceed with the appeals. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Tuan Haji Hisyam Teh, however moves to adjourn the hearing of the appeals to a later date in three to four months. The basis of his application for adjournment is that he and his team only recently took over and that the appeals - spanning tens of thousands of documents - disclose strong serious points to be canvassed and that his team be given adequate opportunity to do a good job.

[2] To put it bluntly, the defence seeks an adjournment of these appeals for the simple reason that they are not prepared.

[3] The respondent's position is that the fixing of the dates of the appeals in August 2022 has been known since as far back as the case management on 8 April 2022 - which is some four months ago. Parties were then advised that the Court would proceed on the dates fixed. The Court's minutes of the case management on 8 April 2022 confirm this. Parties were therefore well aware that the Court will proceed on those dates.

[4] The Federal Court Registry, issued a Notice of Hearing dated 29 April 2022 informing all parties that the hearing of the appeals are scheduled on 15 August 2022 to 26 August 2022. Therefore, any change in counsel was done with full knowledge of the dates that have been fixed for hearing.

[5] Then, on 26 July 2022, the Court received a letter from the appellant's former solicitors, Messrs Shafee & Co stating that the appellant had discharged them as his solicitors on record. This is in encl 237. The former solicitors clearly indicated that the choice to discharge the former solicitors was the appellant's. Messrs Shafee & Co stated as follows:

Sign up to view full cases Login