DAP Perak Legal Bureau is deeply concerned with the affidavit affirmed by The Special Task Officer to the Attorney General, Siti Rahayu Binti Mohd Mumazaini on 5th September 2018, in relation to a member of the Bar, Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Dr Muhammad Shafee bin Md Abdullah (“Shafee”), who is alleged to have received a total of RM9.5 million from the then Prime Minister, Dato’ Sri Muhammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak (“Najib”) personally, as the legal fees to lead the prosecution in the appeal against Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim’s acquittal.
The affidavit is substantiated by several pieces of evidence i.e. , inter alia, the cheques and the account statement of Najib in AmIslamic Bank Berhad together with Shafee’s extract of bank accounts evidencing the payment.
While DAP Perak Legal Bureau agrees in principle that Shafee’s appointment under Section 376(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) as Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor at that time may have been valid, we believe that Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim was denied a fair trial as Shafee had not acted independently but had acted for financial or pecuniary interest in the appeal.
An advocate and solicitor is duty bound, even when, or more so when, acting as a Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor, to uphold the law, the dignity and the high standing of the profession at all times, and shall not practise any deception on the Court and shall not accept a brief if his professional conduct is likely to be impugned, as laid down by the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978.
On 9th June 2017, Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim filed an originating summons against the Government for his immediate release (case registered as KL High Court Appellate and Special Powers WA-24-36-06/2017: Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Government of Malaysia) and in the affidavit-in-support in that suit, it was asserted that Shafee had been paid RM9.5mil to act as the Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor in the appeal over the former Opposition leader’s sodomy conviction. It is public knowledge that Shafee, however, in his affidavit-in-reply, has denied receiving such payment.
We believe that Shafee has committed misconduct in his professional capacity which amounts to grave impropriety where he shall be subject to disciplinary actions by the Advocates & Solicitors’ Disciplinary Board.
Section 94(3) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 has outlined numerous acts and/or omissions which are constituted as misconduct which shall be liable to penalties/punishment such as:
Section 94(3) (c) of the Legal Profession Act 1976: dishonest or fraudulent conduct in the discharge of his duties
Section 94(3) (j) of the Legal Profession Act 1976:
the carrying on by himself, directly or indirectly, of any profession, trade, business, or calling which is incompatible with the legal profession or being employed for reward or otherwise in any such profession, trade, business, or calling.
Section 94(3)(o): being guilty of any conduct which is unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor or which brings or is calculated to bring the legal profession into disrepute.
We urge the Bar Council to uphold the rule of law and to invoke the provisions stipulated in the Legal Profession Act 1976, and to take necessary action against Shafee by inter alia, lodging a complaint with the Disciplinary Board.