“The appointment of Apandi was done according to the prerogative of the King, on the advice of the prime minister.
“It is not right for them to propose and debate on it. The Bar Council should withdraw the motion,” he said in a statement.
Apandi, a former Federal Court judge, took over as AG from Abdul Gani Patail on July 28, 2015.
When contacted by FMT, Rayer, who is also the Seri Delima assemblyman in Penang, said he would attend the AGM tomorrow to oppose it.
“There is no way to challenge the AG … unless the Federal Constitution is amended to provide a clause for the AG’s removal if he fails to discharge his duties to uphold justice.”
Rayer said the sacking and removal of the AG was the prerogative of the prime minister.
“What legal impact will it have after it is debated?” Rayer asked on the motion, proposed by Charles Hector, Francis Pereira and Shanmugam Ramasamy.
Rayer alleged he had “friends in Kuala Lumpur who shared the same sentiment” and who would also oppose the motion when it is debated tomorrow.
The Bar Council had proposed a motion to discuss the administration of justice in the country after Apandi announced there were no criminal wrongdoings pertaining to funds from SRC International, 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) and the RM2.6 billion donation deposited in the private bank accounts of Prime Minister Najib Razak.
The motion called for Apandi’s resignation immediately to “restore public confidence and perception of the rule of law”. It called for the Solicitor-General to take over the role as public prosecutor in the SRC, 1MDB and the RM2.6 billion political donation cases.
In another statement, Rayer asked the Bar Council to drop the motion to have lawyers attend a compulsory training programme so that they could obtain CPD (Continuing Professional Development) points.
Failing to join the training course would see lawyers fined RM500 under the proposal.
“This requirement is unfair for junior lawyers with less than five years in practice. It is already tough on them to earn a living in the current economic situation.”
He said if this motion was passed, it would contravene the Legal Profession Act and would be open for challenge in the courts.