Sabah Sessions Court Rejects Tei’s Attempt to Cite CM for Contempt

26 November 2025

KOTA KINABALU: The Sessions Court has dismissed Albert Tei’s ex-parte notice of application for leave to apply for an order of committal against the caretaker Chief Minister of Sabah, Datuk Seri Panglima Haji Hajiji bin Haji Noor.

Sessions Court Judge Zaini Fishir @ Fisal delivered the ruling after hearing submissions from Edward Paul, representing Tei Jiann Chieng (Albert Tei), and the State Attorney-General (SAG) of Sabah, Datuk Brenndon Keith Soh, together with Roland Alik, who appeared for the caretaker Chief Minister.

Albert Tei had sought leave under Order 52, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 (O52 ROC 2012) to cite the caretaker Chief Minister for contempt of court, alleging that state immigration powers were used to block his entry into Sabah and prevent him from attending his corruption trial.

On 17 November 2025, permission was granted for the SAG’s Chambers to appear and assist the court in determining whether leave should be granted. At the same time, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Tuan Rustam Sanip was invited to address the court in support of the SAG’s submissions.

The State’s preliminary objection argued that O52 ROC 2012 governs civil proceedings and does not apply to criminal matters under Order 1 Rule 2(2) of the ROC 2012, rendering the application unsustainable. It was further submitted that, under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution and section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code, control and direction of all criminal prosecutions rest with the Federal Attorney General, represented by the DPP.

As such, an accused person in ongoing criminal proceedings is not the proper party to initiate contempt proceedings in another court.

The State also argued that the application was made in bad faith, constituted an abuse of process, and lacked any factual or legal basis.

After considering the submissions, the Sessions Court ruled in favour of the caretaker Chief Minister based on the preliminary objection and dismissed Albert Tei’s application.

The decision affirms the court’s position that contempt proceedings must not be invoked lightly or for purposes inconsistent with the proper administration of justice.