Mahathir vs Najib court case: Act with malice not stated

KUALA LUMPUR: The statement of claim for "misfeasance in public office" of former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and two others did not state that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is a 'public officer' or that he had committed an act with malice.
"Ingredients for tort of misfeasance are not there in the statement of claim," said Najib's lawyer Datuk Hafarizam Harun, when approached by the media, after the hearing an application to strike out civil suit filed by Najib in a High Court, today.
"By reading the statement of claim, you cannot find any of the ingredients that Najib is a public officer, that he had committed an act that caused an injury or the act is done with malice," said Hafarizam.
Mahathir, Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan and Anina Saadudin had sued Najib for alleged misfeasance of public office, on March 23, 2016.
Najib had filed an application to strike out the civil suit on April 19, last year, on the grounds that there were no elements of tort misfeasance and breach of fiduciaries in public office as claimed by the three.
Hafarizam also said there are differences between the 'public services', 'public office' and 'public servant' and 'members of administration'.
He said Article 160 of the Federal Constitution excluded 'members of administration' to be in public services.
He explained that 'members of administration' are ministers, deputy minister and political secretary and therefore, it includes Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.
Hafarizam also said that the suit should be struck out as there is lack of "facts and particulars" on how Najib had used his powers to cause injury to Mahathir, Khairuddin and Anina.
On the point of "public office", Mahathir's lawyer Haniff Khatri said: "It is not the 'office' (which is important) but it is the nature of the decision."
"Our point is that, in tort of misfeasance, you don't have to suffer specifically," said Haniff. He said it is their complaint that the PM had conducted public decision for personal reasons.
The matter was heard before High Court judge Abu Bakar Jais in the open court, which was declared as judge's chambers.
Decision is deferred to a date to be fixed, later.