KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has dismissed Datuk Seri Najib Razak's application for leave to commence judicial review over his claims of a royal addendum order by the former Yang di-Pertuan Agong that would allow him to serve the remainder of his jail sentence under house arrest.
High Court judge Justice Amarjeet Singh made the decision on the basis that four supporting affidavits in Najib's application were "purely hearsay".
"In the circumstances, I hold that the Affidavits No 1, 2, 3 and 4 are purely hearsay.
"As a result, there is no affidavit verifying the material facts stated by the applicant in his Order 53 statement.
"As such, there can be no arguable case for further investigation at the substantive stage," the judge said here on Wednesday (July 3).
The supporting affidavits in question were Affidavits 1 and 2 (affirmed by Najib), Affidavit 3 (affirmed by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi) and Affidavit 4 (affirmed by Pahang Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Wan Rosdy Wan Ismail).
In Ahmad Zahid's affidavit, the Umno president stated that he was informed by Investment, Trade and Industry Minister Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Tengku Abdul Aziz of the existence of the addendum order on Jan 30.
He claimed that Tengku Zafrul had told him the former Yang di-Pertuan Agong had shown him the addendum order and that Tengku Zafrul had taken a photograph of it.
"The averments of Ahmad Zahid were also pure hearsay as the source of the information and his belief was Tengku Zafrul.
"Ahmad Zahid himself has no knowledge of the addendum order except what he heard from Tengku Zafrul," Justice Amarjeet said.
On Wan Rosdy's affidavit, the judge was also of the opinion that it was hearsay.
On Najib's two affidavits, Justice Amarjeet said both affidavits just contained bare statements without mentioning the source and his belief of the existence of the addendum order.
"I find that both affidavits are, at the highest, pure hearsay. Apart from that, the applicant had averred that his solicitors had written to the respondents concerning the same without receiving a reply.
"The applicant relied on the source Tengku Zafrul but the source did not affirm any affidavit. There is also no explanation forthcoming as to this fact," he said.
Justice Amarjeet said the source, Tengku Zafrul, was "available but not used".
"Tengku Zafrul had attempted to file an affidavit but this court denied him as the law does not allow him to do so at the leave stage," he added.
The court also found that Najib had failed to meet the threshold of a mandamus order.
Najib filed the application for leave for judicial review on April 1.
He named the Home Minister, the Commissioner General of Prisons, the Attorney General, the Federal Territories Pardons Board, the Minister at the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform), director-general of the legal affairs at the Prime Minister's Department and the government as the first until the seventh respondents, respectively.
In the notice of application, Najib sought a mandamus order that all of the respondents or one of them to answer and verify the existence of the addendum order dated Jan 29.
Najib is seeking a mandamus order where if the addendum order exists, all or one of the respondents must execute the royal order and immediately move him from the Kajang Prison to his residence in Kuala Lumpur where he would serve his remaining sentence under house arrest.
Following Najib's application, Ahmad Zahid affirmed a supporting affidavit on April 9, claiming that the addendum order existed and that he was shown the document by Tengku Zafrul at his (Ahmad Zahid's) house at Country Heights on Jan 30.
Ahmad Zahid said Tengku Zafrul showed him a copy of the addendum order on his (Tengku Zafrul's) phone which he personally photographed or scanned from an original copy as shown to him by the former YDPA.
On May 21, Wan Rosdy affirmed his affidavit in which he also claimed that he was told about the royal addendum order by Tengku Zafrul late afternoon on Jan 30.
Tengku Zafrul had attempted to seek leave to file his own affidavit, which he claimed would correct "factual inaccuracies" in Ahmad Zahid's affidavit, but his application was dismissed by the High Court on May 2.
The dismissal was on the grounds that the matter was at the ex-parte leave stage and that there was no law provision for Tengku Zafrul to insert his affidavit at this point.
