Delivering the unanimous judgment of the court, Justice Zabariah Yusof said there were no live issues for determination since Najib’s appeal and review have already been disposed of.
“The KC (King’s Counsel Laidlaw) was appointed for the purpose of the (SRC International case) criminal proceeding.
“With the disposal of the appeal and (subsequent) review, the matter is now academic,” Zabariah said.
Other judges who sat on the bench were Justices Nordin Hassan and Abu Bakar Jais.
Laidlaw wanted to represent Najib in his final SRC appeal last year.
He was made Queen’s Counsel (now King’s Counsel) in 2008 and specialises in business and financial crime laws.
However, the High Court rejected his admission bid, saying Laidlaw did not satisfy the requirements for ad hoc admission under the Legal Profession Act.
Najib began his 12-year prison term on Aug 23, 2022, immediately after the Federal Court upheld his conviction and sentence for abuse of power, money laundering and criminal breach of trust over SRC funds amounting to RM42 million.
The former prime minister’s bid to review the August 2022 judgment was also dismissed by another Federal Court in a majority ruling.
Laidlaw then filed an appeal over his admission on the same day as the Federal Court’s ruling in the SRC appeal.
Earlier today, lawyer Bastian Pius Vendargon, representing the Malaysian Bar, told the court that SRC’s appeal ended last year.
“This appeal (by Laidlaw) is not against the dismissal of his admission to argue a potential future review, but (only) to argue the SRC International appeal,” Vendargon said.
Kuala Lumpur Bar committee’s lawyer Gurdial Singh Nijar, lawyer V Sithambaram, who appeared for the prosecution in the SRC case, and senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan informed the court that they agreed with the Bar’s argument.
However, Shafee Abdullah, who appeared for Laidlaw, said that they filed an appeal against the court for refusing his admission to “correct” the High Court’s ruling.
He said that the High Court declared Laidlaw as a person who is “not qualified” to be admitted.
“We say that the findings were wrong,” Shafee said.
To that, Zabariah questioned Shafee on whether the purpose of Laidlaw’s appeal serves as a “remedy” for the High Court’s judgment.
Shafee answered in the affirmative.
We are live on Telegram, subscribe here for breaking news and the latest announcements.