MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Wee Ka Siong has demonstrated to the Malaysian public that an empty vessel—or perhaps a tin Milo—makes the loudest noise. This is evident from his baseless attack on the Prime Minister, accusing him of refusing to confirm the issue of the royal addendum. The Prime Minister has already explained in Parliament that he cannot disclose further details as the matter is sub judice and is scheduled for a hearing at the Court of Appeal on 6 January 2025.
The appeal concerns Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak’s challenge against the High Court’s decision to dismiss his judicial review application to enforce the alleged “house arrest order” purportedly issued by the King. Since the case is still before the court, the government is bound by the rule of sub judice and cannot comment further.
Wee is not legally trained, so my advice to him is simple: talk to the lawyers in MCA who actually understand the concept of sub judice before making sweeping and uninformed statements about the royal addendum. Otherwise, he risks further embarrassing himself.
Allow me to provide Wee with some legal clarity. While the rule of sub judice is often associated with jury trial systems, Malaysian courts—right up to the Federal Court—have affirmed its applicability in this jurisdiction. For a legal reference, Wee should read the judgment of Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali in PP v Najib Tun Razak [2020] 11 MLJ 808, particularly paragraphs 1222 to 1226, where the principle of sub judice is explained in detail.
This legal precedent makes it clear that Wee has overstepped by commenting on a matter he does not fully understand. Whether this is due to poor advice or sheer ignorance, his reckless remarks warrant a public apology to the Prime Minister.
Additionally, Wee should be transparent and state unequivocally where MCA stands on the proposal to allow Najib to serve his sentence under house arrest. The public deserves a straightforward answer from MCA, without any double talk.