On July 20 last year, the Court of Appeal allowed Lawyers for Liberty’s (LFL) appeal to reinstate an originating summons it had taken out against Singapore’s home affairs minister K Shanmugam.
This was after the AG had successfully intervened to annul the suit when the matter was originally from a High Court.
On the same day, a three-member Court of Appeal bench chaired by Justice Yaacob Sam also allowed LFL’s appeal to revive another suit filed against the Malaysian government seeking to prevent it from assisting the Singapore government in the matter.
The Court of Appeal ruling meant that the Kuala Lumpur High Court is required to hear both suits on the merits of the case.
Speaking after a case management held earlier today, LFL’s lawyer Shahid Adli Kamaruddin said deputy registrar Hafizullah Omar had directed all parties to ensure that their respective written submissions and bundle of authorities were filed in advance of the hearing date.
The Jan 17 hearing date was fixed at a previous case management held last year.
Federal Counsel Noor Atiqah Zainal Abidin represented the AG and the government at the case management today.
The government has identified seven questions of law which it says justifies the Federal Court hearing the appeals on their merits.
One issue is whether a Malaysian court can exercise jurisdiction to hear a matter in which sovereign immunity over a foreign governmental act is raised.
On Jan 24, 2020, LFL had brought its suit to challenge a “correction direction” issued by the Singapore government under Singapore’s controversial legislation, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma).
The rights group said the direction was issued in respect of matters which LFL had published concerning the treatment of prisoners at Changi prison, who, they alleged, were being executed in a “brutal and unlawful” manner.
A 2020 statement issued by the Singapore government on its official portal claimed that LFL’s allegations contained “false statements of fact”.
Singapore’s home affairs ministry also called the allegation “untrue, baseless and preposterous”, adding that all judicial executions in the country were carried out in strict compliance with the law.
LFL’s suit seeks various reliefs, including a declaration by the court that neither Singapore’s home affairs minister nor anyone acting under his authority can take any action to enforce any provision of Pofma extraterritorially against it within Malaysia.
In its suit against the Malaysian government, LFL sought a declaration that it has the right to express its opinion in Malaysia under Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution which governs the right to free speech.