Shafee , who appeared in person before the Federal Court, said lawyers Tommy Thomas and VC George had filed the motion to have the incoming committee refer him to the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board.

“Section 99 of the Legal Profession Act states any complaint concerning the conduct of a lawyer or a pupil shall in the first place be referred to the board,” he said in his submission before a three-member bench chaired by Rohana Yusof.

Others were Vernon Ong Lam Kiat and Abdul Rahman Sebli.

Shafee is appealing against the findings of the Court of Appeal and High Court which dismissed his suit against the Bar, Thomas and George for defamation and the breach of the Act.

Shafee said a disciplinary committee would conduct its proceedings in camera when an alleged misconduct was heard.

(The board imposes punishment whether to act against a lawyer based on a proposal of the committee.)

Shafee said Thomas and George filed the complaint because he gave a lecture after Anwar was convicted and jailed five years by the Federal Court on Feb10, 2015 for sexual misconduct against Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

“The motion defamed me and the Bar agreed to discuss the matter,” Shafee said, adding that the Bar should have made a complaint to the board.

He said the publication amounted to punishment as any condemnation, the form of censure or reprimand should come from the board.

Shafee said there were matters which could not be discussed at the AGM or lawyers risked flouting the laws, like sedition or contempt of court.

“The Bar Council must control what goes on in the AGM or there might be discussion about the conduct of judges and Rulers,” he added.

He said Thomas and George, a former Court of Appeal judge, were very well aware what could be discussed at the AGM and yet they drafted the motion.

The Bar filed a complaint against Shafee to the board in June 2015 and the matter is still pending.

Lawyer Ambiga Sreenevasan, appearing for Thomas, submitted there was already public condemnation against Shafee after he delivered a talk organised by a political party on Anwar’s conviction.

Ambiga said the AGM was a closed-door affair and as such any discussion enjoyed qualified privilege.

“In any event, Shafee had obtained an ex-parte injunction on March 14, 2015, which was on the eve of the AGM,” she said.

Ambiga said even if there was no injunction, Shafee could have attended the AGM to present his views on the legal position.

“So the question of a breach of natural justice did not arise,” said Ambiga, who is also a former Bar president.

She said the Bar did not violate the Act on which it was guided to conduct its business as there was no penalty prescribed for any breach.

Lawyer Porres Royen, who represented George, submitted that any breach, as claimed by Shafee, was academic as the motion was not discussed.

“Thomas and George also did not act with malice when they submitted the motion,” he added.

Counsel Lambert Rasaratnam, who represented the Bar, submitted that Shafee had the right to free speech and that it followed that lawyers at the AGM could discuss matters behind closed doors.

“The legal questions posed by Shafee before this court are hypothetical due the injunction,” Rasaratnam said, adding that Shafee would not have been denied his right to be heard if he had attended the AGM.

Rohana reserved her judgment on a date to be fixed.

The motion concerned Shafee’s conduct as the deputy public prosecutor after he took part in a forum titled “Fight the prejudices against the judiciary” held in Kelana Jaya here on Feb 17, 2015.

Among others, the motion expressed concern over the behaviour of Shafee as an ad-hoc DPP, mentioning that he had staged roadshows relating to Anwar’s sodomy case.

The two said from the time the Federal Court had convicted Anwar, Shafee had behaved in a repugnant and obnoxious manner, which had brought the legal profession into disrepute.

Shafee claimed the defendants had maliciously defamed him to destroy his reputation and legal career following the release of the motion.

In his statement of claim, Shafee also sought a declaration that the motion was done in bad faith to embarrass him and that the AGM was not a proper forum to hear the motion.