Najib wants Federal Court to revive RM1.9mil suit against ex-AG Thomas

2026-03-18 - 03:30

Najib Razak asked the Federal Court to revive his civil lawsuit against ex-AG Tommy Thomas for the wrongful exercise of prosecutorial discretion over charges relating to 1MDB and International Petroleum Investment Company. PUTRAJAYA: Former prime minister Najib Razak has turned to the Federal Court in a final attempt to revive his RM1.9 million lawsuit against former attorney-general Tommy Thomas. Najib filed his motion last month, seeking leave to appeal a Court of Appeal ruling which affirmed the High Court’s decision to strike out the lawsuit. Lawyer Yudistra Darma Dorai, a member of Najib’s legal team, said three legal questions had been framed to secure leave from the Federal Court. He said the civil action was not a collateral attack on the criminal charges framed against Najib. “It concerns my client’s allegations on the actions, conduct and omissions of the former AG, pertaining to Najib Razak, prior to Thomas becoming the AG, during his tenure, and after,” he told FMT. Yudistra said the leave application would be heard on July 30. On Jan 13, a three-member Court of Appeal panel comprising Justices P Ravinthran, Wong Kian Kheong and Nadzarin Wok Nordin dismissed Najib’s initial appeal and upheld a High Court ruling, handed down on Nov 25, 2022, striking out the suit. Najib sued Thomas in 2020, alleging misfeasance in public office, malicious prosecution, and negligence in exercising prosecutorial discretion under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution, over charges brought against him in connection with 1MDB and the International Petroleum Investment Company. In the suit, the former prime minister sought RM1.9 million in special damages, said to cover the cost of engaging an audit team to review documents and prepare his defence in the criminal proceedings. In the Court of Appeal ruling, Ravinthran said the panel agreed with the High Court that since the criminal cases had not commenced when the civil suit was filed, the action for misfeasance, malicious process, and negligence was clearly premature. He also said the bench took the position that the tort of malicious process does not exist in the Malaysian jurisprudence. The court, however, disagreed with the High Court’s ruling that Thomas had immunity and his actions were non-justiciable. “Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution does not confer immunity to the AG with respect to civil suits taken against him personally. “The cases cited by the High Court do not apply as there are criminal cases where the discretion of the attorney-general was challenged,” he said.