PUTRAJAYA: The Chief Judge of Malaya, Justice Hasnah Mohammed Hashim has instructed that the judicial review filed by Datuk Seri Najib Razak over his house arrest bid be heard at the High Court as early as mid-September.
Her specific instructions on Wednesday (Aug 13) came following a concern raised by Najib's lead counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, that his client would have to spend a couple more years before he could go on house arrest.
Earlier, a three-judge panel chaired by Justice Hasnah dismissed an appeal by the Attorney General and ordered that Najib's judicial review be remitted back to the High Court for a full hearing on its merits.
Two other judges on the panel were Federal Court judges Justices Zabariah Mohd Yusof and Hanipah Farikullah.
After the decision was delivered, Shafee made an oral application for the judicial review to be heard on Wednesday before the same panel.
Shafee wanted the matter to be expedited as his client could not afford to lose another day in securing his right to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest.
He said the Federal Court had the jurisdiction to hear the substantive hearing immediately.
Shafee: Given the possible appeals at the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court, this case might take two to three years before he (Najib) can be given a house arrest.
Justice Hasnah: You are just assuming, Tan Sri.
Shafee: Even if we move mountains, it would take at least two years.
Justice Hasnah: I am the Chief Judge of Malaya. I give strict instruction to my judges to dispose cases within nine to 12 months. If you want us to hear the matter, we hardly have three months before our retirement. We do not want to delay the matter.
Justices Hasnah and Zabariah have hit retirement age and are currently on extension.
Justice Hasnah also said that judges were not robots and they needed time to read the documents and deliberate on the matter before coming to a decision.
A hearing at the Federal Court would also deprive parties of their right to appeal as any decision by the apex court would be final, she said.
Shafee said his client was willing to take the risk of forgoing his right to appeal if it would get the matter resolved without delay.
Attorney General Tan Sri Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar stood up and said the judicial review should be heard at the High Court and not at the Federal Court.
The court rejected Shafee's application and instructed that the matter be heard before a new judge at the High Court.
"This is our instruction. We are remitting this case back to the High Court.
"The first case management date is on Aug 18, before the High Court judge who will be a new judge who has been transferred from Shah Alam.
"The High Court judge will fix an early hearing date, which is one month from Aug 18, after the exhaustion of all affidavits filed by parties," Justice Hasnah said.
Najib filed the application for leave for judicial review on April 1, 2024.
He named the Home Minister, the Commissioner General of Prisons, the Attorney General, the Federal Territories Pardons Board, the Minister at the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform), director-general of the legal affairs at the Prime Minister's Department and the government as the first until the seventh respondents respectively.
In the notice of application, Najib sought a mandamus order that all of the respondents or one of them answer and verify the existence of the addendum order dated Jan 29, 2024.
Najib is seeking a mandamus order where, if the addendum order exists, all or one of the respondents must execute the royal order and immediately move him from the Kajang Prison to his residence in Kuala Lumpur, where he would serve his remaining sentence under house arrest.
On July 4, 2024, the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed Najib's application for leave, citing hearsay in supporting affidavits.
This prompted Najib to appeal the decision at the Court of Appeal, where he won his appeal in a 2-1 majority decision, with the order for the matter was remitted back to the High Court.
The Attorney General's Chambers then appealed against the appellate court's decision at the Federal Court.
