One of them, R Kengadharan, said confidentiality clauses would not apply as it was a public interest suit that involved Putrajaya and former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad against Apandi.
He told FMT attorney-general Idrus Harun should reveal the outcome of the case since monetary compensation was involved.
Watch the video here.
The other lawyer, Syed Iskandar al-Mahdzar, said private individuals or corporate entities were entitled to settle defamation or contractual disputes as compensation would be paid from private funds.
“But any compensation paid to Apandi is actually from taxpayers’ money and the government must be accountable,” he told FMT.
They were commenting on news reports quoting Apandi’s lawyer, Baljit Singh Sidhu, as saying: “The government, without prejudice, has agreed to settle the suit without admission of liability. We can’t disclose the terms of the settlement.”
Baljit added that the settlement was recorded before High Court judge Akhtar Tahir.
Kengadharan said the government, if it was advocating transparency, must extend this to judicial proceedings between the Attorney-General’s Chambers and any other party.
“In this case, the public has the right to know the final outcome as it involved a former prime minister and the nation’s ex-top legal officer,” he said.
Syed Iskandar urged MPs to raise the issue in the Dewan Rakyat if Idrus chose to remain silent.
In the suit filed in September 2020, Apandi sought a declaration that the termination of his services as attorney-general by Mahathir was unlawful.
He asked for RM2,233,599.36 in special damages and punitive and general damages to be assessed by the court.
Apandi was appointed the attorney-general on July 27, 2015. His contract was to have ended on July 26, 2018.
He said the chief secretary to the government had informed him through a letter before the 14th general election that his tenure would be extended by three years.
However, in a letter dated June 5, 2018, the chief secretary informed him that the King had consented to the termination. Apandi said no document on the royal approval was furnished.
The government, in its defence, said any decision to terminate the contract was carried out according to the law and that Mahathir did not play any role in the termination of Apandi’s services.