KUALA LUMPUR: The question of whether or not a "royal addendum exists is a simple yes-or-no question, says Datuk Seri Dr Wee Ka Siong.
The Ayer Hitam MP said the people only wanted to know if there is an addendum.
"If yes, say yes; if no, say no," he said in a five-minute video on his Facebook page on Saturday (May 10).
He added that the question has been raised since March 7 and said that there is now an issue of it being sub-judice.
Dr Wee was referring to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's recent remarks that discussing the royal addendum, which could allow Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to serve his remaining sentence under house arrest, was sub judice.
Anwar said the Court of Appeal has scheduled the hearing for Najib's appeal on the royal addendum for Jan 6, 2025, and the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) has advised all parties to refrain from making sub judice statements.
"Standing Order 23(1)(g) of the Dewan Rakyat prohibits (debate on this matter). So, as advised by the AG, we must respect and place our trust in the judicial institution," Anwar said in reply to Datuk Seri Takiyuddin Hassan (PN-Kota Bharu) during Question Time at the Dewan Rakyat earlier this week.
Dr Wee said Takiyuddin had asked Anwar whether the addendum existed or not.
"Sub judice was used for a jury system when we had one in Malaysia and is still used in some countries today. The jury system involved common people determining an accused person's guilt, while judges provided guidance," he said.
Dr Wee then added that sub judice meant a discussion about the case outside court during a jury trial could influence or confuse the jury.
"Now Malaysia does not have a jury system, and cases are handled by knowledgeable judges at each court level. I believe Malaysian judges are wise, professional, fair, and impartial," he said.
Dr Wee also recalled that a few years ago, then attorney general Tan Sri Tommy Thomas, who was appointed by the Pakatan Harapan government, had said he never accepted the principle of sub judice, as judges should not be influenced by external information.
Dr Wee concluded by saying that the people would follow the law and not discuss the case.
"The people understand and will not discuss it. They only want to know if the addendum exists or not.
"We do not want to challenge the rights and position of the court. They just need an answer if it is a yes or no," he said.
