Rejection of bid to refer questions to High Court unfair, says lawyer
KUALA LUMPUR: The Sessions Court’s dismissal of Toh Puan Na’imah Abdul Khalid’s application to refer questions of law to the High Court was a miscarriage of justice, the High Court heard.
Lawyer Datuk Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar told High Court judge Justice K. Muniandy that the dismissal had denied his client clarity on her legal position and this should be rectified by the High Court to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.
Gurdial was submitting in Na’imah’s application for a revision of the Sessions Court’s dismissal of her application to refer eight questions regarding the validity of charges she is facing.
These are for allegedly failing to declare her assets to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
In his submission, Gurdial said the present charge against Na’imah was an offence that was “purely technical” and likely made “in retaliation” by the MACC.
He said Na’imah was asked to assist in the investigation against her late husband, Tun Daim Zainuddin, as a witness and she was never a suspect.
The MACC issued a Section 36(1)(b) notice on her, requiring disclosure of information in respect of her assets and she had complied with this notice to the best of her ability, Gurdial said.
“Notwithstanding this, the MACC took the view that her compliance was insufficient... insufficient perhaps for them to formulate a charge against the late Daim for any criminal offence.
“Perhaps in retaliation, the MACC commenced the present charge against the applicant,” he said.
Gurdial said the dismissal by the Sessions Court showed a clear misconception in law and procedure when the lower court judge made certain findings that misconstrued the true nature of the charge against Na’imah.
“In this case, the Sessions Court’s dismissal deprived the applicant of this fundamental right, thereby failing to ensure that the legal questions, which are central to the case, were properly addressed,” he added.
Justice Muniandy fixed July 11 for parties to continue their submission.
On Jan 23, 2024, Na’imah was charged for failure to comply with a notice to declare her assets, which included Menara Ilham and several other properties in Kuala Lumpur and Penang.
She was charged under Section 36(2) of the MACC Act 2009, which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment or a fine of RM100,000, upon conviction.
On Feb 29, 2024, Na’imah filed an application to refer questions of law pertaining to Sections 30(5), 36(2) and 62 of the MACC Act 2009, as well as Section 32(3)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 to the High Court.
On Feb 18, the application was dismissed by the Sessions Court on grounds that it lacked merit, as there were no constitutional issues raised in the case.
