Oct 19 hearing for Najib's challenge to prison no-go for Dewan Rakyat proceedings

The Kuala Lumpur High Court has fixed Oct 19 to hear Najib Razak's application to challenge the Prison Department’s decision not to allow him to attend Dewan Rakyat proceedings. 

Judge Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid set the date when the case was brought for mention before him today in the presence of federal counsel M Kogilambigai, who acted for the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), and Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, representing Najib.

Earlier, Kogilambigai informed the court that she would need at least one week to study the former prime minister’s application for leave for judicial review. 

"We need time to study the submissions and we will inform the court if the AGC raises any objection over that matter," she said, adding that there was no urgency over the matter as Parliament was dissolved two days ago.

Shafee however said the matter was urgent as there were serious legal issues to be determined by the court, including whether Najib could be nominated as a candidate and be present at the nomination centre where he would be contesting. 
 
"I suggest that the application be heard this Friday (Oct 14)," the lawyer said.

On Oct 5, Najib, 69, filed the application naming the government, the home minister, and the prison commissioner-general as the first to third respondents.

He is seeking an order to quash the decision of the third respondent not to allow him access to his officers/aides for the purposes of parliamentary, legislative and constituent work.

He is also seeking an order to set aside the decision not to allow him to attend Parliament on the scheduled dates of sitting.

In his supporting affidavit, Najib said the decision of the first and third respondents in rejecting his application on the grounds of security was conveyed to him via the Kajang Prison Office on Sept 28.

Najib also said that the first and third respondents’ refusal to allow him access to his officers and aides for the purposes of parliamentary and constituent matters and the subsequent inaction by the second respondent was an exercise of unreasonableness or irrationality.

He said pursuant to Article 59 of the Federal Constitution, he had a constitutional obligation to discharge his duties effectively and with substance as a member of Parliament, in the representation of the constituents of Pekan.