'I will fight,' says Isham over ex-parte injunction filed against him by AG

KUALA LUMPUR: Former Umno Supreme Council member Isham Jalil will look into the ex-parte injunction filed against him by the Attorney-General (AG) for alleged contempt of court.

In a statement issued via Facebook today, Isham claimed that the injunction could be seen as the government's desperate attempt to maintain power as the current administration under the leadership of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was unstable.

"News suddenly came out this morning that Anwar's government through the AG wants to imprison me for an alleged offence, supposedly insulting the court over the case of Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

"According to the news report, they (AG) have filed the ex-parte injunction at the court and I will take a look into it (the injunction).

"I was also informed that Anwar's government is currently unstable, (and) perhaps, they will arrest and imprison more people for their political interest in their desperation to maintain power.

"(And) it is my turn this time, (hence) I will fight," he said.

Earlier, Berita Harian reported that AG on Dec 28 last year had applied for permission from the High Court to initiate committal proceedings for contempt of court against Isham and subsequently, to imprison or impose a fine on him.

The application comes after allegations that Isham had uttered words that constituted contempt of court during a discussion titled 'Townhall For Justice: Justice for Whom?' broadcasted on The Malaya Post Facebook page on Sept 30.

According to the AG, Isham, identified as the respondent, is accused of questioning the trial and appeal processes involving Najib in the cases related to SRC International and 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).

The applicant (AG) stated that, in the discussion, Isham is alleged to have challenged the recusal process involving Judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah, who presided over the 1MDB trial at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

The AG said the respondent, among other things, provided comments explicitly and/or implicitly alleged to imply that the judge acted with bias in deciding the relevant application.

Most Popular
Related Article
Says Stories