PUTRAJAYA: The Cabinet did not discuss the issue related to the gag order to prevent public discussion about an addendum linked to Datuk Seri Najib Razak that would allow him to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest, says Fahmi Fadzil.
"It was not discussed and we do not instruct the Attorney General's Chambers," said the Communications Minister, who is also the government spokesman, during his weekly post-cabinet meeting press briefing on Wednesday (Jan 15).
On Jan 14, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said there is no need for a gag order to prevent public discussion about the addendum.
The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) disagreed with the move by the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) to apply for a gag order on the matter.
“In my personal opinion, there should not be a gag order,” she told reporters on the sidelines of the International Political Financing Conference.
According to Azalina, the case is already a public matter and Parliament is set to reconvene next month.
“So, this may be raised again,” she added.
However, Azalina believes that the AGC has reasons to apply for the gag order, stressing that the judiciary must be allowed to act independently on the matter.
“To be fair, I think the AGC has its legal reasons and they will submit to the courts. So let the courts decide on the matter,” she said.
The government is applying for a gag order to prevent public discussion about an addendum that the former prime minister claimed would allow him to serve the remainder of his SRC International Sdn Bhd prison sentence under house arrest.
Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan – representing the Federal Territories Pardons Board, the government and five others – made the application orally during case management on Monday.
He cited “sensitive issues” as the reason for the application.
The government also objected to a watching brief conducted by lawyers appearing for MPs from Perikatan Nasional.
On Jan 6, Najib obtained leave from the Court of Appeal in his appeal relating to his claims of a royal addendum order permitting house arrest.
In a 2-1 majority decision, the appellate court overturned the High Court’s dismissal of the former prime minister’s application for leave to initiate judicial review.
