-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
If bolehland court indict Snake Shan, can he still be minister in SG?
- Thread starter Cs101
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2014
- Messages
- 4,841
- Points
- 113
Already settled a long time ago and struck out LFL suit by their own AG is self-pwn.
https://www.malaymail.com/news/mala...ion-suit-to-high-court/141973#google_vignette
Federal Court bins Lawyers for Liberty’s suit against Singapore minister, orders second freedom of expression suit to High Court
Friday, 28 Jun 2024 6:04 PM MYTPUTRAJAYA, June 28 — The Federal Court today struck out a civil suit filed by Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) against Singapore Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam over the rights group’s challenge for a declaration that a “correction” direction issued by the Singapore government could not be enforced against them in Malaysia.
A five-man panel led by Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim allowed the Malaysian Attorney General’s (AG) appeal to strike out the suit.
In delivering the court’s decision, Justice Abang Iskandar said the suit relates to sovereign or state immunity and the Malaysian Courts are unable to exercise any adjudicative jurisdiction over the acts of a sovereign nation.
Justice Abang Iskandar held that the suit did not involve issues of encroachment into state or sovereign immunity but involved Malaysian parties over which the Malaysian courts have the jurisdiction to hear.
He said LFL had expressed concern and sought clarification of their rights of freedom of expression under the Federal Constitution relating to statements made in Malaysia which were the subject matter of Singapore legislation, namely the Pofma law.
“This, in our view, is not obviously and plainly unsustainable,” said Justice Abang Iskandar.
The Singapore government issued a “correction notice” to LFL in 2020 following a press statement released by the group on its website alleging that brutal and unlawful methods were used to execute prisoners in Singapore’s Changi prison.
The Singapore government said the article contained false statements of facts and directed the group to insert a correction notice and failure to comply with the correction direction would amount to an offence under its Pofma law.
LFL did not comply with the correction direction and instead, it proceeded to file two originating summonses in the High Court, one against Shanmugam and the other against the government of Malaysia.
On June 10, 2021, the High Court allowed the Malaysian government and AG’s applications to strike out both suits, but the Court of Appeal on July 20 the following year overturned the decision and ordered the suits to be remitted back to the High Court for full trial.
On May 16 last year, the government of Malaysia and AG were granted leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the appellate court’s decision. The court heard their appeals today online via zoom.
Senior federal counsels Shamsul Bolhassan and Liew Horng Bin appeared for the Malaysian government and AG while lawyers Datuk Gurdial Singh Njiar, Latheefa Koya, Shahid Adli Kamarudin and Abraham Au acted for LFL. — Bernama
------------------
