Court rejects Rosmah's bid to halt RM67.5 million jewelry payment order
A three-judge panel refused to grant Rosmah Mansoor an unconditional stay of the RM67.5 million judgment and ordered her to pay RM30,000 in costs.
In a hearing before a three-judge panel, Judge Firuz Jaffril, with Judges Amarjeet Singh and Aliza Sulaiman, dismissed Rosmah Mansoor's request for an unconditional stay of the RM67.5 million judgment related to 43 luxury jewelry pieces. The panel ordered Rosmah to cover RM30,000 in legal costs and instructed her counsel, David Gurupatham, to take steps to enforce the High Court's order. The claim originates from Global Royalty Trading SAL, which alleges the jewels, valued at USD14.57 million, were loaned in 2018 and never returned, leading to the payment demand.
On 10 June, High Court Judge Quay Chew Soon had ordered the payment within a month. A prior conditional stay was granted by Commissioner of Judicial Affairs Marianne Antoinette Ghani, allowing the funds to be held in a joint escrow account while Rosmah's appeal proceeds. Rosmah's appeal lawyers argued the Court of Appeal should have discretion to stay the judgment, citing the pending appeal schedule, while Global Royalty's counsel warned that the stay would undermine the judgment's enforceability. The senior federal lawyer representing the national police and government indicated no objection to Rosmah's application.
Why it matters
The ruling decides if a former prime minister's spouse must pay a multi-million debt tied to a high-profile jewelry dispute.
How the sides frame it
HIGH AGREEMENTBoth camps report that the court rejected Rosmah Mansoor's request to stay the RM67.5 million jewelry judgment, but the right-leaning coverage emphasizes the unanimous nature of the decision and notes the lack of assets, while the centrist coverage focuses on procedural details such as the judges involved and legal costs.
CENTER
Centrist coverage presents the court’s rejection as a factual outcome, detailing the judges, legal costs, and the origin of the jewelry claim.
RIGHT
Right-leaning coverage frames the ruling as a decisive, unanimous dismissal, highlighting the absence of a conflict with the 1MDB case and Rosmah’s failure to produce assets.
The right emphasises
- the Court of Appeal’s decision was unanimous
- the High Court had already addressed the matter with no conflict with the interim undertaking in the 1MDB case
- Rosmah’s failure to pay and the lack of disclosed assets beyond a dormant RM20 bank account
In this story
