PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal (CoA) today granted Prime Minister Datuk Anwar Ibrahim an extension of time to include two bundles of documents as supplementary records of appeal to refer eight legal questions arising from a suit filed by his former research officer, Muhammed Yusoff Rawther, to the Federal Court.
A three-man bench led by judge Datuk Azizul Azmi, who sat with Datuk Dr Lim Hock Leng and Datuk Nadzarin Wok Nordin, allowed the application unanimously.
The panel held that the sole dispute for determination in Anwar‘s notice of motion was whether an extension of time ought to be granted to him for the inclusion of a supplementary record of appeal.
“We observe that under Rule 18 Sub Rule 6 of the Rules of The Court of Appeal, the appellant (Anwar) would have a right to include the dispute bundles, provided that the appellant records the objection of the respondent (Yusoff Rawther).
“We are satisfied with the circumstances of this case that there exist good reasons explaining the delay in filing the supplementary record of appeal.
“This is because firstly, the delay of the respondent in replying to the draft index (preliminary table of contents for a court bundle) and subsequently of the proceedings before the Kuala Lumpur High Court and eventual referral of the matter to the Chief Judge of Malaya. We, therefore, allow this application,” he said.
The bench also ordered Yusoff to pay RM5,000 in costs in accordance with the outcome of the main appeal.
During today’s proceedings, lawyer Alan Wong appeared for Anwar while Yusoff was represented by lawyer Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali. Yusoff was not present in court today. However, his brother and two aunts attended and followed the proceedings.
Wong informed the court that there had been a 21-day filing of the record of appeal on Sept 23, despite the original deadline on Sept 2. He explained that on Aug 20, they had circulated the draft index to Yusoff’s lawyers, who did not raise any objection within the required 48-hour period and instead indicated their objection on Aug 26.
“Instead of taking the simplistic position of saying that they did not object within the 48-hour period, we instead decided to follow the process as set out in the rule to write to the registrar on the issue before us to be referred to the High Court judge.
“Both the registrar and the High Court judge took the position that it was not referred to during the hearing and should ideally not be included in the record of appeal.
“We then wrote to the Chief Judge of Malaya (CJM) for clarification on the practice direction. The CJM responded that no practice direction was required and that, based on a plain reading of the rules, when there is a dispute over the inclusion or exclusion of documents in the record of appeal, the party seeking inclusion should simply record the objection in the index,” he said.
It is understood that the bundles of documents relate to dates and the chronology of events.
Outside the courtroom, Rafique said Anwar’s lawyer sought to include the bundle of documents for the appeal proper fixed for March 4.
The appeal concerns the decision made by High Court judge Roz Mawar Rozain, who dismissed Anwar’s bid to refer eight constitutional questions to the Federal Court on the provisions on the immunity of a sitting prime minister.
Rafique said they objected to it because the documents Anwar wanted to include in the record of appeal were never referred to in any affidavit or in the referral question application.
“On Sept 2, the trial judge who heard the application also stated the same, that those documents that Anwar referred to were never referred to her when arguing the application. So, the records of appeal will include those documents, but we are given the chance to indicate why we are not happy with them.”
© New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd
