KUALA LUMPUR: Former attorney-general (A-G) Tan Sri Tommy Thomas has dismissed allegations that prosecutions carried out during his tenure were motivated by malice.
Thomas, who was A-G from June 4, 2018 to Feb 28, 2020, said all cases were pursued in accordance with the law and based solely on evidence, without bias towards any political figures or parties.
"I was merely fulfilling my solemn constitutional duties as attorney-general under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution.
"They were certainly not based on malice."
He said this in his supplementary affidavit to recuse High Court judicial commissioner Roz Mawar Rozain from hearing a suit filed by Tan Sri Shahrir Abdul Samad against him over alleged malicious investigation, prosecution and wrongful arrest.
Thomas initiated the recuse application after Roz Mawar dismissed his application to quash the suit in July on grounds that Shahrir's claim was not an abuse of process and ought to be ventilated in a trial.
He claimed that the court had already decided the case against him when the judge made numerous unfounded conclusions that contradicted both the pleadings and the evidence presented before her.
He claimed that Roz Mawar, in her ruling, had misunderstood the contents of his memoir 'My Story — Justice in the Wilderness' when she mentioned the book in her judgment.
Thomas claimed Roz Mawar made a quantum leap in deciding that the plaintiff had established prima facie of improper motives and bad faith in the prosecution against him.
Shahrir, who is former Felda chairman, had in December last year filed a suit naming Thomas and three others, including the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, as defendants.
The suit was over a cheque worth RM1 million that he had received from then prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak for the purpose of rehabilitation works for the Puri Langkasuka housing project in Larkin, Johor.
The former minister was charged in early 2020 and his trial began in July 2022.
On Jan 5 last year, the High Court gave Shahrir a discharge not amounting to an acquittal after the prosecution dropped the case.
Shahrir had maintained that the sum was a reimbursement, not income, and therefore did not need to be declared.