Zaid to be questioned over his “seditious” tweet – IGP Khalid

Nov 12, 2016
Former Federal Minister Zaid Ibrahim (left) will be questioned by the police over his "seditious" tweet ridiculing PM Najib and AG Apandi.
Former Federal Minister Zaid Ibrahim (left) will be questioned by the police over his “seditious” tweet ridiculing PM Najib and AG Apandi.

Zaid Ibrahim is to be questioned by the police over a tweet deemed “seditious and misleading”, according to Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar.

The Bukit Aman’s cyber crime unit would summon Zaid to record his statement.

“PCIRC @PDRMsia panggil tweet handler ini utk penjelasan statementnya yang menghasut dan mengelirukan ini (Call up this tweet handler to explain his seditious and misleading statement),” Khalid tweeted.

Zaid’s tweet read: “Looks like if you are a crooked PM, all you have to do is appoint a crooked AG, and the court will not interfere”.

Claiming not to be surprise by the IGP tweet, former Federal Minister Zaid said he would cooperate.

“The IGP has always taken a deep interest in my tweets. I will answer the police’s questions with full candour, as I have always done,” Zaid told Star Online.

Court ruling

In Kuala Lumpur on Friday, the High Court ruled that the Attorney-General (AG), in exercising his power to make the decision not to prosecute the prime minister over claims regarding a RM2.6bil donation, could not be challenged in court.

Accordingly, it threw out three applications for leave to initiate judicial review proceedings over this matter.

The three applicants are Zaid, former Batu Kawan Umno division deputy head Khairuddin Abu Hassan and the Malaysian Bar.

High Court Judge Hanipah Farikullah dismissed the applications on the grounds that the power of the AG – exercisable under Article 145 of the Federal Constitution – was not subject for judicial review or could be questioned by the court.

When met after the decisions were delivered in chambers, Senior Federal Counsel Amarjeet Singh said the judge ruled that the court had no jurisdiction in such matters.

On the argument by the parties that the AG had no power under Article 145 to close files, he said the court accepted the AG’s explanation in his affidavit that it was an administrative decision, and that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was free to investigate new evidence and facts received by it on the issue of the RM2.6bil donation and SRC International Sdn Bhd.

Amarjeet said the court ruled that the applications were frivolous as the applicants had no knowledge of the information provided to the AG in these three investigation papers.

He said there was no order as to costs because the judge held that it was a public interest matter and that the role of the AG Chambers was to assist the court in the applications.

Zaid had sought a declaration that the decision not to prosecute the prime minister was beyond the powers of the AG under Article 145(3) of the Constitution.

In his court papers dated Feb 2, Zaid sought a direction to quash the decision and compel the AG to institute criminal proceedings against the Prime Minister under the appropriate provisions of the Penal Code and the MACC Act 2009.

Zaid’s lawyer Amarjit Singh Sidhu confirmed the details, while Zaid himself said he would not appeal against the court ruling.

In the second application, Khairuddin sought to set aside the decision made by the AG on Jan 26 that there was no criminal offence committed by the Prime Minister over three investigation papers by the MACC.

In his application for leave filed in February, Khairuddin sought a court order for a special investigation commission to be set up to study, consider and determine further action over the outcome of those investigation papers.

Third applicant Malaysian Bar sought to quash the decision that the AG made known in a Jan 26 press release, which stated that no criminal offence was committed by Prime Minister Najib Razak in relation to three investigation papers submitted by the MACC to the AG.

Related links:
AG has absolute discretion on prosecution – High Court