Malaysia

Apandi Ali seeks damages for his 'unlawful' termination as AG

The former AG contends he was never furnished with any document evidencing the royal consent to his termination

Updated 6 years ago · Published on 01 Oct 2020 11:30AM

Apandi Ali seeks damages for his 'unlawful' termination as AG
Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali was terminated as AG on June 5, 2018. – Bernama pic, October 1, 2020

KUALA LUMPUR – Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali sent a letter of demand to the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) yesterday, demanding restitution and unspecified damages over his termination as Attorney-General (AG) two years ago, which he claims was unlawful. 

The letter, dated September 30, via law firm Messrs Shukor Baljit & Partners, had been served to the AGC yesterday.

Mohamed Apandi’s lawyer, Datuk Baljit Singh confirmed this matter when contacted today.

In the letter, the former AG demands the AGC respond to his claim of restitution and unspecified damages within seven days of the date of the issuance of the letter, failing which he would commence legal proceedings for an appropriate remedy including exemplary or punitive damages as well as costs.

Mohamed Apandi claimed that his termination was orchestrated and decided by the then prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

He said he was appointed as the AG on July 27, 2015, with the consent of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for a period of three years until July 26, 2018 and the consent was given pursuant to the advice given by the prime minister at that time in a letter dated July 27, 2015. 

Mohamed Apandi said the appointment could only be terminated pursuant to Article 145 (5) of the Federal Constitution.

He claimed that on April 6, 2018, the Chief Secretary to the Government had notified him that Yang di-Pertuan Agong had on March 30, 2018 consented to his reappointment with effect on July 27, 2018, which he accepted through a letter dated May 7, 2018. 

However, on June 5, the same year, he was notified by the Chief Secretary that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had consented to his termination of his appointment as the AG and contended that he was never furnished with any document evidencing the royal consent.

He believes his termination was orchestrated and decided by Dr Mahathir, who had “arrogated to himself the power of termination unlawfully”.

Mohamed Apandi, a former Federal Court judge, claimed that the then prime minister had abused his position and misconducted himself as a public officer and committed the tort of misfeasance in public office. 

He further claimed that the Dr Mahathir's conduct was with intent on breach of contract, between the Malaysian government and himself.

Mohamed Apandi categorically stated that his termination was unlawful, null and void. 

As a result, he said he suffered losses and damages including the loss of earnings, allowances and other benefits from July 27, 2018 until July 26, 2021. 

In May 2018, it was reported that Dr Mahathir had said Mohamed Apandi was given 30 days unrecorded leave from May 15, 2018.

Kelantan-born Mohamed Apandi was appointed as AG to replace Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail.

On June 2018, Tan Sri Tommy Thomas was appointed as the AG replacing Mohamed Apandi, however, Thomas resigned as AG on February 28, this year, following the fall of the Pakatan Harapan government.

Former Federal Court judge Tan Sri Idrus Harun was appointed as the new AG on March 6, 2020.

Mohamed Apandi, when asked why he took the action two years after his termination, said he had no real reason to do so.

“But it took me two years to ponder over the possible issues involved and the narratives leading to my dismissal,” he told Bernama via WhatsApp. 

“Just exercising my legal rights against an abuse of position and power by the former PM, Dr Mahathir, in removing me as the AG without valid reasons, after an extension of my tenure as AG was given (with the consent of the King),” he said.

Pursuant to Section 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953 (Limitation Act), actions in contract and tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. The six-year limitation period applies notwithstanding when the plaintiff discovers the damages. – Bernama, October 1, 2020

Related News

Malaysia / 2w

Anwar asks Loke to reconsider resignation over Najib pardon

Malaysia / 2mth

Former PM Ismail Sabri expected to be charged tomorrow

Malaysia / 6mth

Ahmad Zahid's DNAA decision goes against public interest: Malaysian Bar

Malaysia / 6mth

PSSC targets to finalise report on AG-PP split by mid-May - Azalina

Malaysia / 6mth

40 per cent of Sabah's rights: Respect High Court decision - Ronald Kiandee

Malaysia / 7mth

'Don't push us against the wall' - PKR MPs say over proposed constitutional amendments

Spotlight

Malaysia

Nhaveen murder trial: Accused admits taunting victim but denies fatal assault

Malaysia

MCMC probes alleged AI sexual abuse targeting Kedah pupils, teachers

Malaysia

Anwar checks final preparations for Budget 2027

Malaysia

Sarawak election could be called within weeks of Budget 2027

Malaysia

Anwar contacts Prabowo over ‘alarming’ transboundary haze

Malaysia

King calls for schools in haze-hit areas to close

Malaysia

Parents worry over children’s exposure as haze worsens

By Alfian Z.M. Tahir

You may be interested

Malaysia

Ex-unit trust consultant charged with unlicensed securities activities

Malaysia

Anwar contacts Prabowo over ‘alarming’ transboundary haze

Malaysia

Budget 2027 briefcase tells story of Malaysian unity through recycled materials

Malaysia

Police probe yet another alleged assault of 14-year-old by senior in school dorm

Malaysia

Budget 2027 expands individual tax relief, cuts rates for middle-income earners

Malaysia

Budget 2027: Allowance for special needs and autistic students increased to RM200 per month

Malaysia

Budget 2027: Sabah, Sarawak to receive RM34.9b in federal allocations next year

Malaysia

Budget 2027 to offer permanent posts to more than 9,000 contract doctors