What legal procedural error did the Malaysian Bar commit?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Malaysian Bar Committed a Procedural Error by Tabling a Motion on Muhammad Shafee Abdullah's Conduct at its AGM

The Federal Court found that the Malaysian Bar committed a legal procedural error by publishing a motion concerning Muhammad Shafee Abdullah's conduct on its website and subsequently tabling it for resolution at its Annual General Meeting (AGM). This action was deemed a breach of Section 99(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976, which mandates that complaints regarding an advocate and solicitor's conduct must be in writing and initially referred to the Disciplinary Board. The court ruled that this process was illegal, grossly unfair, and highly prejudicial to Muhammad Shafee, effectively prejudging his guilt before any formal disciplinary proceedings.
Violation of Statutory Requirements

The Federal Court highlighted that the Malaysian Bar's action directly contravened Section 99(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976. This section clearly stipulates that any complaint concerning the conduct of an advocate and solicitor must be submitted in writing and must first be made to or referred to the Disciplinary Board. By bypassing this statutory requirement and proceeding with a motion at the AGM, the Malaysian Bar failed to adhere to the prescribed legal procedure.
Prejudgment of Guilt

The court determined that the Malaysian Bar's decision to publish and table the motion constituted a prejudgment of Muhammad Shafee's guilt. By allowing such a complaint to be resolved through a motion at the AGM, it implied a condemnation before the Disciplinary Board had the opportunity to conduct its proceedings. This rendered the statutory requirement of referring complaints to the Disciplinary Board meaningless and was found to be grossly unfair and highly prejudicial to Muhammad Shafee.
Disciplinary Board's Exclusive Jurisdiction

The Federal Court emphatically stated that the Disciplinary Board, and not the Malaysian Bar, is the statutory body entrusted with the authority to handle matters pertaining to the conduct of advocates and solicitors. The court clarified that the Malaysian Bar lacks both the legal basis and the factual standing to adjudicate or process complaints of misconduct against its members. Its role is not to act as a disciplinary tribunal for individual advocates and solicitors.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What legal procedural error did the Malaysian Bar commit?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends