In an application filed yesterday, the public prosecutor, who was not named by the King’s Counsel as a respondent in the appeal, sought leave to intervene.
He said Laidlaw ought to have made the public prosecutor the 4th respondent in the appeal as he was a party in the original application in the High Court.
The attorney-general, the Malaysian Bar and the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee were the three other respondents in the proceedings.
All four respondents objected to Laidlaw’s admission.
Applying to strike out the pending appeal before the Federal Court, the public prosecutor, who has conduct of all criminal cases on behalf of the government, contended that the appeal was now academic and its continuance was an abuse of the court’s process.
He also said that Laidlaw’s appeal did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.
Further, the public prosecutor said, Laidlaw’s appeal was filed out of time and was, therefore, incompetent.
“The appeal is obviously unsustainable and ought to be struck out,” the public prosecutor said.
The application was supported by an affidavit filed by deputy public prosecutor Ashrof Adrin Kamarul.
Yesterday, the Bar also filed a similar motion to annul Laidlaw’s appeal on the ground that Najib’s criminal appeal had been disposed of with finality.
It further claimed that Najib’s solicitors at the time, Messrs Zaid Ibrahim Suflan TH Liew & Partners, had given a clear indication on July 29 that Laidlaw would not appeal the High Court ruling.
The Bar’s honorary secretary, B Anand Raj, filed an affidavit in support of the application to strike out the appeal on the ground that it was now academic.
The Federal Court had on Aug 23 upheld Najib’s conviction and his sentence of 12 years’ jail and fine of RM210 million on corruption charges relating to funds belonging to SRC International, a former subsidiary of 1MDB.
Laidlaw had applied to the Kuala Lumpur High Court in July to represent Najib.
Foreign lawyers must apply for ad hoc admission before they can represent clients here.
His application was rejected by Justice Ahmad Kamal Shahid on July 21 after the judge held that Laidlaw did not possess any special qualifications and experience that were not already available among local lawyers.
Laidlaw filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Court on Aug 22.