The court held that a legal duty must be shown to issue a mandamus; hearsay evidence is insufficient to establish claims of a supplemental order affecting personal rights.

Introduction

[1] This present appeal before us is against the Kuala Lumpur High Court's decision dated 3 July 2024, which dismissed the Appellant's (the Applicant's) application for leave to commence Judicial Review proceedings.

[2] The said appeal was heard on 6 January 2025. At the end of the appeal, both my learned brother, Azhahari Kamal Ramli JCA and I decided in favour of the Appellant, whilst my learned sister, Azizah Nawawi JCA, dissented. We now give our reasons for deciding so.

Brief Facts

[3] The Applicant is the former Prime Minister of Malaysia.

[4] The Respondents are:

i. Minister of Home Affairs, the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform);

ii. the Commissioner General of Prison;

iii. the Attorney General of Malaysia;

iv. the Pardons Board for the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya;

v. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform)

vi. the Director General of Legal Affairs Division; and

vii. the Government of Malaysia.

[5] On 4 July 2018 and 8 August 2018, the Applicant was charged in the Kuala Lumpur High Court in relation to what is now commonly known as the "SRC Case" where he was found guilty of all charges on 28 July 2020. Accordingly, he was duly convicted by the High Court. Thereafter, the Applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. Both appeals were dismissed.

[6] On 1 September 2022, the Applicant, through his solicitors Messrs Shafee & Co, filed a petition to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong ("YDPA") for a complete and/or full pardon against the conviction and sentence of the SRC Case pursuant to, inter alia, art 42 of the Federal Constitution .

[7] Following the petition filed on 1 September 2022, the Applicant filed subsequent addendums to the YDPA on 18 October 2022 and 20 April 2023 for His Majesty's consideration wherein other relevant developments in relation to the issues of pardons were raised, mostly in relation to the dominant issue that the Applicant was never given a fair trial or properly heard in the appeals.

[8] On 2 February 2024, the 4th Respondent under the purview of the 5th and 6th Respondents, announced that the YDPA (interchangeably referred to as "His Majesty") had convened the 61st Pardons Board meeting for the Federal Territories on 8 December 2023. The said meeting was then adjourned to 15 January 2024 and then to 29 January 2024 when the Pardons Board finally sat again, wherein His Majesty ordered that the Applicant's imprisonment sentence be reduced from 12 to 6 years and the fine of RM210 million reduced to RM50 million, ie the "Main Order".

[9] It is the Applicant's case that His Majesty had also immediately or simultaneously issued an Addendum Order on the same day. This Addendum Order was however, not announced by the 4th to the 6th Respondents or by any of the other Respondents when the announcement of the Main Order was made on 2 February 2024.

[10] According to the Applicant, he had on 12 February 2024 received clear and reliable information that in addition to the Main Order dated 29 January 2024, His Majesty had issued an Addendum Order stipulating that the Applicant be allowed to serve the reduced sentence of his imprisonment under condition of "home arrest," instead of confinement in Kajang Prison or any other prison.

[11] Armed with that information, the Applicant instructed h