Attorney-General Tommy Thomas has vowed to take action against his officers who had filed an appeal against a Shah Alam High Court decision to acquit PKR vice-president Rafizi Ramli.

This came after Attorney-General’s Chambers officers challenged the decision to acquit and discharge Rafizi and bank clerk Johari Mohamad over the Banking and Financial Institutions Act (Bafia) charges.

“I was not aware that the appeal was filed. I did not instruct my officers to appeal this case," the AG told Malaysiakini.

“This is clear disobedience. I will initiate disciplinary action against those responsible.” 

Read more: Rafizi trains guns on AG after appeal filed over Bafia decision

Meanwhile, The Edge quoted Thomas saying a decision was already made not to appeal against the acquittal and it had been conveyed to the relevant officers.

He will rescind the appeal on Monday.

Earlier today, Rafizi criticised Thomas after being informed by his lawyers that the AGC had appealed to overturn the acquittal.

He was summoned to attend case management for the upcoming proceedings at the Palace of Justice on March 9, next year.

Rafizi had told Malaysiakini that while it was Thomas’ prerogative as attorney-general to appeal, the move to pursue politically motivated charges inherited from the previous administration was at odds with Thomas’ appointment to carry out reforms.

The former Pandan lawmaker also hoped Thomas would exercise the same diligence with regard to bringing former minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil's family members, implicated in the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) case, to justice.

Last year, the Shah Alam Sessions Court had found Rafizi guilty of disclosing documents comprising banking details related to NFC, National Meat & Livestock Sdn Bhd, Agroscience Industries Sdn Bhd and NFC chairperson Mohd Salleh Ismail to the media.

Salleh is Shahrizat's husband, who was also former Wanita Umno chief.

The court also found Johari guilty of conspiring with Rafizi to commit the alleged offence.

However, the Shah Alam High Court overturned the decision, saying the prosecution had failed to produce original documents, as required by Section 61 of the Evidence Act.