Why didn't Mahathir file lawsuit jointly with Sanusi or Daim?

Over breakfast, a friend wondered as to why Tun Dr Mahathir did a joint lawsuit together with his paid minions, Dato Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan and Anina Saadudin.

There seemed to be many supporters judging by the names in the G25. Any of them could jointly file the lawsuit and give more credibility. Why not them instead of the two clowns?

Why not have credible faces like Tan Sri Sanusi Junid and Tun Daim to jointly do the application related to Tort Misfeasans? Sanusi and Daim were signatories to the Citizens' Declaration, though Daim's absense and silence remain a mystery.

And, there is also the supposedly long list of so-called credible personalities in the coalition of NGOs and opposition leaders in the Citizens' Declaration. Forget certain names that claimed to be in the list but they are not in the like Tan Sri Zaman Khan and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

Any of them could have be jointly filing it. Why the two dogs with only big bow wow but upstairs zero?

As of yesterday, the talk within UMNO circle is the presence of Ku Li in UMNO Kelantan's Kelantan Declaration in support Dato Najib. It may seemed to be a finality that he is not going to be tricked by Tun M again.

In the last coup against Pak Lah, Raja Petra said Ku Li was promised but Tun M snaked him at the last minute in favour of Najib. Rumours emanating from the other side said the coalition wants Ku Li to be next PM to replace Najib.

They are so confident these days but are already quarreling over the spoils of war like in Prophet Muhammad's Uhud War against the Quraisy. Tun M insist it to be Dato Mukhriz.

So this is to say Dato Ibrahim Ali's boys could be bullshiting about he was present at the declaration because Ku Li was supposed to be present. He was there, as his Secretary general Syed Hasan put it, to pay respect to Tun M to sign a declaration with DAP.

Nevertheless, Ku Li is a Kelantanis and options are always left open.

Purely wayang

There will be those claiming Khairuddin and Anina are affected by certain matters by Najib's Misfeasans. Fine, but how could the court proceed with Khairuddin's case with Matthias Chang is still outstanding in court?

As far as Anina's issue with UMNO, it is a lost cause from day one. She should know that but still pursue the inevitable. Only a bozo would do that.

It is safe to assume that it is merely wayang Tamil. T

Tun M will pre-empt the court to say he expect the court will throw away the case. A better script will be that it remain pending to perpetuity to await completion of Khairuddin and Matthias case which will be for years.

So Tun M could go to town to keep reminding and media keep repeating that he has a pending lawsuit against Najib. There will be other pending lawsuits too to be kept drumming.

No case

The fact about it is in a well reported statement by a lawyer and Bersih 2.0 activist, New Sin Yew:

 While former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad's lawsuit against his successor Najib Abdul Razak has caused a sensation, lawyers are pessimistic about the outcome of the suit.

Lawyer New Sin Yew said the suit will ultimately fail because Najib is not considered a public officer under the law.

“One element of the tort of misfeasance of public office is it must be shown that Najib is a public officer. He is not,” he told Malaysiakini in an e-mail yesterday.

He explained that the Interpretation Act of 1948 and 1967 defines public office as “an office in any of the public services”.

Article 132(3)(a) of the federal constitution defines 'public services' in a way that excludes any member of the administration of the federation or the state, which in turn means ministers, deputy ministers and other posts under Article 160 of the constitution.

“Najib is a minister, but ministers are not considered a public officer.

“Therefore, the suit will fail,” New said, when asked about the suit filed yesterday.

Mahathir, former Langkawi Wanita Umno member Anina Saadudin, and former Batu Kawan Umno division vice-chairperson Khairuddin Abu Hassan are plaintiffs in the suit.

In the suit, the sole defendant Najib is accused of breaching his fiduciary duty and misfeasance in public office, by compromising various investigations against him in relation to the 1MDB scandal.

Misfeasance is a legal term referring to actions that are legal but performed improperly.

Meanwhile, lawyer Andrew Khoo opined that proving sufficient locus standi would be an issue in the case.

Locus standi refers to whether a party has sufficient grounds to bring a case against another.

Khoo said the plaintiffs would have to show the court that they have been especially affected by Najib's alleged malfeasance compared to the general population, including other taxpayers and Umno members.

“So when the court considers the issue of locus standi, it would have to see what specific interests he has, as opposed to any other ordinary person (to decide) whether or not to allow his suit,” he said.

He said insufficient locus standi is often among the first objections raised by the defendants in cases against the government, especially Najib.

But Khoo added that the court should take on a more relaxed view of the concept in public interest litigation.

“It is a question for the court as to whether they want to be more liberal in interpreting the concept of locus standi (in public interest cases),” he told Malaysiakini last night.

https://m.malaysiakini.com/news/335027

Interesting that Sin Yew highlighted about the distinction between public offices and public service. It should be of interest to the Dato Seri Khir Toyo and Lim Guan Eng debate going on.

Guan Eng runs the prospect of facing at least the charge of Penal Code Section 165. MyKMU has a writeup here. But, lets talk of Guan Eng and his home in another post.

Despite having the leftist with him, could he not have a better team of lawyers?

The friend ask the question over breakfast because he wondered also why too few people of credible standing is with Tun M's team in his yet another coup. It is only different set of excuses to justify another of his power play.

In the coup against Pak Lah, he had division support. Will the so-called grassroot support within UMNO via the GKCM group of branch leaders show their presence on March 27?

Currently, it is an embarassing feat as Tun M had to do endless wayang Tamil. The people supporting and fighting with him are of no credibility. That led the politically motivated drama to be obvious.

Retribution

For all practical purpose, Tun M is defeated in UMNO and he is in desperation of losing face. PKR knows that he lost it to Najib thus need a platform outside UMNO to continue his fight.

His options to bring Najib down from within UMNO failed and vote of no confidence in Parliamanet does not stand a fighting chance, thus he is left with election to bring down Najib. That will mean betraying by destroying UMNO. Should he end hs life about now, it will be a pathetic end to his glorious history.

By the way Citizens' Declaration in disarray with the declaration lack any specific reform promised and both NGOs and opposition parties' grassroot members are not acceptable to working with Tun M, it will require a lot of effort to make it work.

Dato Zaid Ibrahim said a sizeable number of UMNO members will turn up at his orgainsed March 27 gathering. It better be because PKR and PAN cannot attract sufficient crowd. That is the much needed endirsement to the Citizens' Declaration.

Thus far heard, it is DAP that is working hard to bring people. If that is so and the numbers present are large, it will be like Bersih 4.0 and the message will be lost. That will not make it attractive to Malay voters. 

The proTun may think they are winning.

Let them think so. after all, they are fanatics unable to think and will swallow everything the old man puke out.

Our friend reminded the words of the late PAS President Dato Fadzil Nor in which he prayed that Tun M will live long enough to disaster that he has done, see people realised the destruction he made and and his sins revealed out in the open.

The friend acknowledged that Tun M was a great man with ideas and visions but his problems is with his politics. His politics supercede better judgement. Sanusi loves to repeat the view that political considerations must supercede socio-economic, technical and commercial considerations.

The friend emphasised that it is because of politics and pursuit of power that Tun M is willing to do the unethical and unsavory acts like lying, twisting facts, slandering and even destroying what he has built.

As we ponder over these strong words from our friend, whose view is likely the views of many wise and distinguished elders he had consulted, we believe many may not realised that Tun M's politics had ruined the institutions he now claim to want to do the reform and yet blame it on Najib in his declaration.

Finally, we mutually agreed that whatever Tun M is undergoing, it is hope that it serve to cleanse his past right here in the temporal world before he meet his maker than face the afterlife retribution destined for mortals.