KUALA LUMPUR :Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali has filed a RM2.2 million suit against Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and the Government of Malaysia, seeking a declaration that his  termination as Attorney-General (AG) by the former Prime Minister was unlawful.

Mohamed Apandi filed the legal suit via law firm Messrs Shukor Baljit Partners through the online system at the Civil High Court here today, naming Dr Mahathir and the government as the first and second defendant respectively.

The suit was filed after the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) did not respond to Mohamed Apandi’s letter of demand served to it on Sept 30.

The former AG in the letter demanded the AGC to respond to his claim of restitution and unspecified damages within seven days of the date of the issuance of the letter, failing which he would commence legal proceedings for an appropriate remedy, including exemplary or punitive damages as well as costs.

In his statement of claim, Mohamed Apandi, who was a Federal Court judge before being appointed as AG in 2015, among others, is seeking a declaration that the first defendant had committed a misfeasance and misconduct in public office and a declaration that the first defendant had caused and induced the breach of contract between him and the Government of Malaysia.

He also wants a declaration that there was a failure of compliance with Article 145 of the Federal Constitution over his termination and a declaration that his termination as AG was not in accordance with law and hence unlawful.

Mohamed Apandi is seeking special damages in the sum of RM2,233,599.36, general damages, exemplary and/or punitive damages, costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.

In his statement of claim, Mohamed Apandi said through a letter dated May 27, 2015 by the Chief Secretary to the Government, the plaintiff was informed that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had consented to his appointment as AG with effect from July 27, 2015 until July 26, 2018.

He said the consent was given pursuant to the advice given by the Prime Minister at that time, pursuant to Article 145(1) of the Federal Constitution and stated that the position of AG is a constitutional office and that he had been properly and lawfully appointed pursuant to Article 145.

The former AG claimed that on April 6, 2018, the Chief Secretary to the Government had notified him that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had on March 30, 2018 consented to his appointment being extended for another three years with effect from July 27, 2018 and it would expire on July 26, 2021.

Mohamed Apandi further claimed that Dr Mahathir who was appointed as Prime Minister on May 10, 2018 started issuing statements calling into question the professional integrity of the plaintiff.

“Among others, the first defendant stated that the first defendant did not consider the plaintiff as the Attorney-General for the federation despite the lawful appointment of the plaintiff as Attorney-General by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong. The plaintiff will refer to all the statements made by the first defendant that were reported in the media to this effect.

“The first defendant then instructed the Chief Secretary to the second defendant to convey the first defendant’s instruction for the plaintiff to take unrecorded leave for a period of 30 days from May 14, 2018 until June 14, 2018,” he said.

The former AG claimed that the instruction given by Dr Mahathir was an unlawful one and contended that under Article 145(5) of the Federal Constitution that he at all material time shall hold office at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

The plaintiff contended that the discretionary power was exercisable by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and not upon any “binding” advice of the Cabinet or Minister including the first defendant as contemplated under Article 40(1A) of the Federal Constitution.

He further contended that the first defendant had formed a biased and jaundiced view of the plaintiff at all material time and had decided on his termination as the AG in any event, irrespective of the powers of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

“The plaintiff contended that at all times the first defendant had treated the office of the Attorney-General and the person holding the said office as a civil servant and must comply with the dictates and wishes of the Prime Minister, an office occupied by the first defendant at that material time.

“The plaintiff pleads and contends that by the first defendant’s conduct, act and omission, there had occasioned a tort of misfeasance in public office by the first defendant,” he said.

Mohamed Apandi  further claimed that  Dr Mahathir made biased statements against him personally and the office of the Attorney-General, proposed the replacement of the plaintiff before the proper termination by the lawful authority who is the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong, refused, failed and neglected to receive advice from the AGC and requested or caused to be used by third parties, including his own personal lawyer, to pressure the plaintiff to immediately resign from the office.