The right of a litigant to choose their solicitor is fundamental; without compelling evidence of conflict, disqualification applications are dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Ahmad Bache J:

A. Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff, the former Prime Minister and Finance Minister had filed a suit against the 1st Defendant and the Government of Malaysia being the 2nd Defendant for a purported tort of misfeasance in public office, amongst others.

[2]Vide Enclosure (36), the 1st Defendant had given notice of their new sets of Solicitors from "Tetuan Tommy Thomas and Co" instead of being defended by Senior Federal Counsel/Attorney General's Chambers ("AGC"). Vide Enclosure (38), the Plaintiff had objected to this notice of appointment of new Solicitors (notice of appointment).

[3] After hearing submissions from both parties, this Court had dismissed encl (38) and allowed encl (36) with costs of RM3,000.00.

[4] Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff had filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[5] Herewith are the grounds for that decision.

B. Brief Facts

[6] The Plaintiff, Dato' Seri Mohammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak was a former Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Malaysia.

[7] The 1st Defendant, Thomas Thomas @ Mohan A/L K. Thomas also known as Tan Sri Tommy Thomas ("TT") was the Attorney General ("AG") from 4 June 2018 to 28 February 2020. The 2nd Defendant, the Government of Malaysia was earlier named as the 2nd Defendant but was later withdrawn by the Plaintiff, leaving Tan Sri Tommy Thomas as the sole Defendant.

[8] During his tenure as the Attorney General ("AG"), the Defendant, in his capacity as Public Prosecutor through the power conferred upon him under s 376 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code , had preferred several criminal charges against the Plaintiff. Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff had filed this suit/action against the Defendant for the torts of misfeasance in public office, malicious abuse of process (malicious process) and negligence.

[9] The purported wrongs on the part of the Defendant as pleaded in the Statement of Claims are for the 35 criminal charges brought against the Plaintiff, in the following 4 cases:

(a) The 1 Malaysia Development Berhad ("1MDB") case.

(b) The International Petroleum Investment Company ("IPIC") case.

(c) The alleged abuse of power under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 ("MACC Act 2009") case.

(d) The alleged money laundering under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 ("AMLATFPUAA 2001") case.

[10] In essence, the purported wrongdoings pleaded to, according to the Plaintiff, were part of a long planned, premeditated exercise by the Defendant, with the support from the Pakatan Harapan Government under Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

[11]Vide encl (36), the Defendant had filed a notice of a Change of Solicitors. According to that notice, "Tetuan Tommy Thomas" was appointed as Solicitor representing the Defendant, replacing the Senior Federal Counsel/Attorney General's Chambers.

[12] The Plaintiff had filed an application to object encl (36), vide Enclosure (38). The objections read as follows in verbatim:

"(a) Tetuan Tommy Thomas dibatalkan dari mewakili dan bertindak sebagai peguamcara defendan pertama dalam tindakan ini termasuk segala prosiding yang selanjutnya.

(b) Semua rakan-rakan kongsi dan peguam-peguam Tetuan Tommy Thomas dibatalkan untuk menghadiri atau bertindak bagi defendan pertama dalam tindakan ini termasuk segala prosiding."

[13] Briefly, the objection (vide encl 38) was to disqualify "Tetuan Tommy Thomas", its partners and solicitors from the firm from representing the Defendant in this suit and in subsequent proceedings. The reasons for this application can be gleaned in the ensuing paragraphs.

[14] At the outset of the hearing of the application (encl 38), upon inquiry by the Court, the learned SFC informed the Court that the Attorney General had on 29 July 2022 granted consent/fiat only to two Counsels/Partners of "Tetuan Tommy Thomas" to act for the Defendant, under s 24 (3) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. It was only then that the Court and Counsels for the Plaintiff had sight of t