High Court dismisses Dr M’s suit to nullify forex RCI findings

Dr Mahathir filed the suit in December 2017 seeking to declare the report by RCI on Bank Negara Malaysia’s forex trading losses as null and void as it excluded legal documents of witnesses and notes of proceeding. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa
Dr Mahathir filed the suit in December 2017 seeking to declare the report by RCI on Bank Negara Malaysia’s forex trading losses as null and void as it excluded legal documents of witnesses and notes of proceeding. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 17 — The High Court here today struck out an originating summons filed by Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad seeking for the court to declare null and void the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) report into foreign exchange losses suffered by Bank Negara Malaysia in the 1990s.

Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla,representing Dr Mahathir, told reporters the decision was made by judge Datuk Azizah Nawawi in chambers after she granted the application by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to strike out the lawsuit.

 Mohamed Haniff Khatri said Azizah , in her decision, said the court had no jurisdiction to challenge the RCI report.

“So, the application by the AG was allowed with no cost,” he said, adding that senior federal counsel  Mazlifah Ayob acted on behalf of the AGC during the chamber proceedings.

Dr Mahathir filed the suit in December 2017 seeking to declare the report by RCI on Bank Negara Malaysia’s forex trading losses as null and void as it excluded legal documents of witnesses and notes of proceeding.

He named the RCI chairman  Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan,  its members, comprising Datuk Wira Kamaludin Md Said, Datuk Seri Tajuddin Atan, Tan Sri Saw Choo Boon, K.Pushpanathanan and Datuk Dr Yusof Ismail, as well as former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, cabinet members and the government, as defendants.

He was seeking to declare the RCI’s report on the Bank Negara’s losses due to forex trading in the 1990s was illegal, incomplete and defective as it lacked proceeding notes, and written and oral submissions through transcription or video recording. 

He also wanted the court to declare that any report by a Royal Commission of Inquiry set up under the Commission of Enquiry Act 1950 would only be legal and if it had all the written statements by the witnesses who testified in the proceeding, the proceeding notes, the submissions, and the findings. — Bernama