The suit, which includes an action for malicious investigation and wrongful arrest, was filed in December after Shahrir’s acquittal in a money laundering case involving RM1 million which he received from former prime minister Najib Razak.
Thomas, who was AG from June 2018 to February 2020, said Shahrir’s suit was unsustainable as it was an abuse of process, since Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution states that the AG has the discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceeding for an offence, except in the shariah and native courts.
Thomas, who was also the public prosecutor during that period, said the discretion to charge only becomes exercisable after the public prosecutor is presented with the investigation papers by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), which is also a defendant in the suit.
“The public prosecutor has no control over the investigation process which is carried out independently by MACC,” he said in his affidavit in support of the application filed early this month.
In preferring a charge against Shahrir, Thomas said he was briefed by MACC officers, had read the investigation paper, and was satisfied that there was good reason to prosecute the plaintiff.
His successor, Idrus Harun, assumed office on March 6, 2020, following Thomas’ resignation. The trial began on July 26, 2022, and more than 20 witnesses were called.
On Jan 5 last year, it was reported that the prosecution had applied for a discharge not amounting to acquittal. However, the High Court acquitted Shahrir following an application by his lawyers.
Thomas said he was not responsible for maintaining the charge since he had left office.
Shahrir, a former minister, is also suing Thomas, ex-MACC chief Latheefa Koya, MACC and the government for alleged malicious prosecution, malicious investigation and wrongful arrest.
Prosecution witness and MACC investigating officer Nurzahidah Yacop testified that Thomas gave the green light for Shahrir to be charged despite an incomplete investigation paper.
In his suit, Shahrir claimed that Thomas had failed to order for the probe of the case to be completed before deciding to grant permission to prosecute.
Shahrir said MACC under Latheefa deliberately failed and refused to investigate his statement that the RM1 million was to reimburse the money which he had advanced from his personal savings account for rehabilitation works on the Puri Langkasuka project.
He said MACC likewise took no measures to ask the Inland Revenue Board to determine whether the RM1 million was the plaintiff’s income before charging him.
He also said that the actions of Thomas and Latheefa as public servants were an abuse of their power or public authority.
The former Johor Baru MP is seeking damages for mental, emotional and physical torture and loss of reputation.
Meanwhile, FMT understands that the Attorney-General’s Chambers, which is appearing for the other defendants, also intends to apply to strike out the suit.
The court has fixed March 13 for case management.