What reason was given for the adjournment of the graft case decision?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Federal Court decision's adjournment was due to a judge's illness.

The Federal Court's decision in the prosecution's appeal concerning Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman's acquittal in a graft case was postponed. This adjournment was announced on Tuesday, June 30, with the new date set for July 13. The postponement was necessitated by the illness of one of the three judges on the panel.
Judge's Illness Cited as Reason for Postponement

Court of Appeal president Justice Abu Bakar Jais stated that the Federal Court panel could not deliver its decision as scheduled because Justice Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali was unwell. Justice Abu Bakar explicitly mentioned that Justice Che Mohd Ruzima was resting and indicated that it would be inappropriate to proceed with the judgment without the full panel present.
Decision Not Delivered Due to Judge's Absence

The three-judge panel, which included Justice Abu Bakar and Justice Che Mohd Ruzima, was unable to pronounce the verdict as planned. Justice Abu Bakar conveyed that the absence of Justice Che Mohd Ruzima prevented the delivery of the judgement, emphasizing that the court could not issue its decision without all members of the panel participating.
Court's Discretionary Power on Adjournments

While rules allow for judgments to be pronounced even in the absence of some judges, the court retains absolute discretion over granting adjournments. This principle was affirmed in the Federal Court decision of Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abdul Razak v Public Prosecutor \[2023], which established that decisions on adjournments fall entirely within the court's purview.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What reason was given for the adjournment of the graft case decision?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends