Apandi also wants a declaration that the former prime minister had caused or induced a breach of contract between him and the federal government.
The former Federal Court judge, who resigned from office and was appointed AG in July 2015, wants a declaration that Mahathir committed a misfeasance in public office as prime minister.
He said Mahathir had failed to follow Article 145 of the Federal Constitution in dismissing him and treated the office of the attorney-general and the person holding it as a civil servant who must comply with his wishes.
He is asking for RM2,233,599.36 in special damages, punitive damages and general damages to be assessed by the court.
The suit was filed by legal firm Messrs Shukor Baljit & Partners today after the government refused any out-of-court settlement within seven days of a letter of demand sent to the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
In his statement of claim sighted by FMT, Apandi said he was appointed by the Yang di Pertuan Agong on the advice of then prime minister Najib Razak for a three-year period until July 26, 2018.
He said the position of the AG was a constitutional office and he was properly appointed under Article 145 (5) of the constitution.
Apandi said that just before the 14th general election in May 2018, the chief secretary to the government issued a letter that his tenure had been extended by another three years and would expire on July 26, 2021 .
He said Mahathir, who was appointed prime minister on May 10, 2018, had questioned his professional integrity through stating he was not the AG despite the lawful appointment by the King.
Apandi said the chief secretary issued a letter on June 5, 2018 that the King had consented to his termination but that he did not furnish any document of the monarch’s approval.
He said he held office at the pleasure of the King and any advice by the prime minister was not binding.
He said Mahathir had formed a biased view of him and had decided on his termination irrespective of the King’s power under the constitution.
Mahathir, by his conduct, had the requisite knowledge that his dismissal would result in the termination of the contract between him and the government, he said.
“The defendant (Mahathir) had taken the actions with the intent to cause and/or to induce the breach of the contract,” he said, adding that the government was liable for Mahathir’s actions and omissions.