KUCHING, Nov 9 — The sons of Yang di-Pertua Negeri Tun Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud have filed a court application for their father to become the third defendant in their civil suit against their stepmother Toh Puan Raghad Kurdi Taib and RHB Investment Bank Bhd.
Alvin Chong, the lawyer for Datuk Seri Sulaiman Abdul Rahman Taib and Datuk Seri Mahmud Abu Bekir Taib, had filed the application during the last mention of the case on November 6 via e-review.
Raghad and RHB Investment are the first and second defendants, respectively.
The application was raised by Chong during proceedings in the High Court here today before Judicial Commissioner Alexander Siew How Wai.
Sulaiman and Bekir are seeking a court injunction to halt the transfer of shares from Cahya Mata Sarawak (CMS) to Raghad.
In early October, the plaintiffs had challenged the authenticity of Taib’s signature on a document, TPR-6, related to the transfer of shares.
Opposing the application, Raghad’s counsel Shankar Ram Asnani told the court that ‘Enclosure 116’ was Taib’s supplementary affidavit that stated that the subject matter of shares were given to the first defendant (Raghad).
“Tun also stated that Exhibit TPR-6 that was signed by him which was challenged by the two experts of the plaintiffs. Tun clearly stated that the document was indeed signed by him,” he said.
He said thereafter, the plaintiffs had filed affidavits of the two experts challenging Taib’s signature that was deposed before a High Court commissioner of Oaths.
“Diametrically opposed to such position taken, the plaintiffs thereafter turned around and filed Enclosure 132 to enjoin Tun Pehin Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud as a proposed third defendant to the present action and this they did on the basis that because Tun had stated what was contained in Enclosure 116, therefore on that basis of what Tun had said (not challenging Tun’s deposition) the plaintiffs seek to enjoin Tun as a third defendant,” Shankar told the court.
Shankar also told the court to peruse Articles 181, 182, 183 read with Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution on the interpretation of the word ‘ruler’ and that it expressly uses the word ‘ruler’ of a state to mean other than a ‘ruler’ in the sense of a Sultan.
He added that provisions of Article 1, 10 and Article 44 of the Constitution of Sarawak stated that no proceedings may be brought against the Governor in his personal capacity except in the Special Court established under the Federal Constitution with the Chief Justice as one of the presiding judges.
“The Plaintiffs have also not sought the consent of the Attorney General of Malaysia personally to institute any proceedings against the Governor and this is apart from the constitutional position under Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution relating to assets and/or properties of Muslims,” said Shankar.
Siew further fixed November 27 for the case management where he will also issue directions on the matter.
Apart from Chong, the plaintiffs are also represented by Jonathan Tay.
Shankar was assisted by counsels Yu Ying Ying, Russell Lim, Alvin Yong, Azlina Dahlan, and Izan Nadiawati Mohd Tabib, while RHB Investment Bank Berhad was represented by counsels Tan Kee Heng and Lesley Ling Lyn. — Borneo Post
