Kota Kinabalu: Parti Warisan President Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal (pic) is challenging his conviction and five-week jail sentence for contempt of court over remarks made regarding the inquest into the death of 13-year-old Zara Qairina Mahathir.
The party confirmed that its legal team will immediately file a notice of appeal to the High Court. While Sessions Court Judge Amir Shah Amir Hassan found the former Sabah chief minister guilty of contempt, the court stayed the execution of the prison sentence, allowing Shafie to remain free pending the appeal.
Warisan Secretary-General Datuk Loretto Padua Jr stated that the party respects the court’s decision but is committed to the appellate process.
The conviction stems from a political ceramah held in Kinabatangan in September last year. During the “Jelajah Inspirasi DSSA P187 Kinabatangan” programme, Shafie questioned the ongoing inquest and allegedly claimed the teenager had been murdered.
The court ruled that these remarks had the potential to interfere with the proceedings intended to determine the cause and circumstances of Zara’s death.
Earlier, Sessions Judge Amir said Shafie’s remarks had “jumped the gun” by declaring a verdict of murder before the Coroner Court had concluded its inquiry.
Amir, who is the Coroner in the inquest, said the speech had also “executed a bullseye shot” to the integrity and authority of the administration of justice.
“Having evaluated the full recording and its context, the Court finds that the respondent’s extrajudicial remarks cannot be shielded under the guise of free speech.
“It is constituted as a serious contempt of Court,” Amir said.
The court had satisfied that the applicant (the prosecution) has established beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent (Shafie) uttered the impugned words on 20 September 2025 during an active and ongoing Inquest proceedings.
“The words directly prejudged the central issue of the Inquest (“This child was murdered”) and scandalised the judicial process (“supposedly for the court to investigate... Where is the justice?”).
“The statements created a real and substantial risk of interfering with the administration of justice and eroding public confidence especially in the Judiciary.
“The respondent has completely failed to purge the contempt, allowing the offending publication, as far as the Court is concerned, to remain publicly accessible,” said Amir.
To the question whether the Court has no jurisdiction to hear contempt proceedings under the Inquest Ordinance, Amir said this was irrelevant not because the High Court has dismissed the application for judicial review based on the lack of locus standi, but because in his view and as far as the inquest proceeding is concerned, the terms of reference of the Coroner’s Court is provided for under the Criminal Procedure Code despite the existence of the said Inquest Ordinance.
“Hypothetically, even if the inquest proceedings should be subjected to the Inquest Ordinance, but since there is the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 that governs the existence of the subordinate Court in Malaysia, including in Sabah, thus, the Court is empowered to hear contempt proceeding by virtue of Paragraph 26 of the Third Schedule of the said Act.
Thus, it is my finding that the respondent’s submission on this issue has no merit.
“Much has been said that the Coroner will not be influenced with the statement made by the respondent.
“With respect, whether the Coroner, that is myself, will be influenced with the respondent’s statement is immaterial and irrelevant. The issue should not be shifted to the Coroner but the real issue should be overthrown to the respondent who uttered the impugned statement in front of the crowd attending the event.
“In my respectful view, when the respondent is saying these words, he exactly knew or ought to know that the inquest proceeding is ongoing.
“And the purpose of inquest is to find, inter alia, the manner in which the deceased Zara came to her death and of course, in any Court’s proceedings, relevant witnesses will be called and it is time consuming.
“Being a lawmaker himself, the respondent is expected to know these processes and procedures,” he said.
