PUTRAJAYA, April 1 — The Court of Appeal today threw out the Attorney-General’s bid to strike out two malicious prosecution lawsuits by a lawyer and former police officer, for having “no merit”.

Among other things, the appellate court noted that the AG and several others sued did not file statements of defence or deny the allegations of malicious action.

“In consequence, we are of unanimous decision that there is no merit in the appeal,” said Justice Datuk Haji Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, who headed a three-man panel.

AG Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail and several others previously failed to strike out senior lawyer Rosli Dahlan’s lawsuit against them, with today being their second attempt at asking the courts to throw out the allegations of malicious prosecution and misconduct.

In November 2013, Abdul Gani was sued along with a list of other defendants in two separate cases by former top police officer Datuk Ramli Yusuff and senior lawyer Rosli Dahlan for alleged malicious prosecution, among other things.

Ramli filed the lawsuit against Abdul Gani and 11 others on November 1, 2013, claiming at least RM128 million in damages for alleged malicious and false investigations and maliciously bringing him to court over alleged graft. He has since been acquitted of all charges against him.

Rosli sued Abdul Gani and 10 others in November 22, 2013, claiming over RM47 million for conspiring to arrest and charge him in court in 2007 over an alleged failure to declare his assets. Rosli has also been acquitted of all charges against him.

Rosli’s suit was filed on November 22 against 11 respondents including the AG, former Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Musa Hassan, current Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed, former Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) head of prosecutions Datuk Nordin Hassan and MACC director of prosecutions Datuk Abdul Razak Musa.

Three MACC officers — Kevin Anthony Morais, Chew Kam Soon, Saiful Ezral Ariffin — and the IGP on behalf of the police force, the MACC and the government were also sued in the same suit.

The MACC replaced ACA as the country’s anti-graft body in 2009.

Tan Sri Cecil Abraham, who represented the AG and others, told the judges that he has been instructed to file leave for appeal at the Federal Court against today’s decision.

Earlier, Cecil argued that the lawsuits were filed beyond a 36-month limitation period and had expired, also contending that those suing had not listed particular details of the allegations, including a purported conspiracy.

But Harvinderjit Singh, a lawyer appearing for former police officer Datuk Ramli Yusoff, told the court that the Public Authorities Protection Act — which provides for the 36-month deadline — “cannot apply to protect actions of public officers which are done maliciously”.

Rosli’s lawyer Chetan Jethwani argued that all of his claims were filed well within the three-year period.

One of the Court of Appeal judges, Datuk Varghese George Varughese, pointed out that those filing the suit had provided the chronology of events of the purported conspiracy and included a qualification that further details could only be obtained through questioning.

Ramli and Rosli were also represented by SC Tay and Pravinder Kaur Cheema respectively, while Justice Vernon Ong also sat on today’s panel.

When met after the court’s ruling today, Rosli said that it was important to remember the principle public authorities “must not abuse their powers and the law to victimise innocent citizens”.

“In truth, this is what the case is about, that the AG cannot claim immunity — for that matter, no public authority can claim immunity — under the Public Authorities Protection Act when their acts are clearly motivated by wrongful intention,” he told reporters here.

The actual hearing of both cases at the Kuala Lumpur High Court have yet to start as the AG and several others had obtained a stay of proceedings pending today’s decision.