Court does not have jurisdiction to hear PKR suit against Najib

Najib's counsel, Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun said the civil court in nature did not have the jurisdiction to grant declaration which was criminal in nature.

"The plaintiffs have the ulterior motive in filing this suit, herein is to vitiate the results of the 13th General Election.

"This is clearly an abuse of the court's process and is one which this court lacks the required jurisdiction to hear," he said in the hearing of an application by Najib and three others to strike out the lawsuit filed by PKR.

Last Aug 12, PKR filed a lawsuit against Najib, Barisan Nasional (BN) Secretary-General Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) and Election Commission (EC) for allegedly overspending in the 13th General Election campaign and for violating the election laws.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who is currently undergoing a five-year imprisonment for sodomy; Lembah Pantai Member of Parliament Nurul Izzah Anwar; Batu Member of Parliament Tian Chua; former PKR secretary-general Datuk Saifuddin Nasution Ismail and Gerakan Harapan Baru member Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad.

Mohd Hafarizam, who also acted for Tengku Adnan submitted that the plaintiffs did not have locus standi to initiate and maintain the suit.

"If this court finds that the plaintiffs do have the locus standi, the suit will ultimately fail as this court lacks the jurisdiction in granting the declaration sought by the plaintiffs," he said.

Mohd Hafarizam also said the exhibits in the plaintiffs' affidavit were reports from newspaper and online news portal and were hearsay evidence which the deponent had no personal knowledge of the contents.

"Plaintiffs merely referred to all the exhibits without stating the sources and grounds of belief of the contents of those exhibits which contradict Order 41 Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Courts 2012.

"An affidavit by a deponent who has no personal knowledge of the considerations upon which the decision was based is pure hearsay and worthless as evidence, and no court can be expected to pay the slightest attention to it," he said.

Datuk Tan Hock Chuan who was representing 1MDB said the allegation of conspiracy involving Najib, Tengku Adnan and 1MDB was totally baseless by the plaintiffs for their political purpose and ulterior purpose.

"There are ongoing investigations against 1MDB currently being carried out by the Public Accounts Committee, the Auditor-General's Department, Bank Negara Malaysia and the Royal Malaysia Police.

"As such, the plaintiffs' claim against the 1MDB is calculated to interfere with the ongoing investigations," he said.

While senior federal counsel Amarjeet Singh acted for EC argued that the plaintiff's writ of summons had violated Article 118 of the Federal Constitution as they should have filed the suit through election petition.

The plaintiffs' lead counsel, Tommy Thomas said the suit was not a plain and obvious case to be struck out as it was far more complex and required a trial.

"We say there are enough complaints in this claim which must be investigated for a consequential order to be ordered by the court," he said.