KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has struck out an originating summons filed by Toh Puan Na'imah Abdul Khalid and four others against the Prime Minister and the government, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim over a police investigation into an alleged attempt to topple the government.
Justice Indra Nehru Savandiah in her ruling said there was no cogent evidence to prove any allegation of bad faith or mala fide on the ongoing police investigation conducted against the five plaintiffs.
Apart from Na'imah, the other four plaintiffs are her sons Muhammed Amir Zainuddin, Muhammed Amin Zainuddin and lawyers Amir Zharif Abdullah and Muhammad Nizamuddin Abdul Hamid.
"Allegations that the police investigation may be influenced by the first defendant's (Anwar) alleged public comments are merely assertions or assumptions unsupported by any facts capable of establishing fact or mala fide on the ongoing investigation.
"There is no nexus to connect the first defendant's public comments to the independent ongoing investigation which is based on a police report lodged," the judge said here on Tuesday (Nov 3).
The court did not make an order as to costs.
Nai'mah, who is the widow of the late Tun Daim Zainuddin, her sons and the lawyers filed the originating summons against Anwar, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Mohd Khalid Ismail and the government as defendants in March.
They sought a declaration that the commencement of an investigation by the second and defendants against the plaintiffs under Section 124B of the Penal Code, pursuant to the police report dated Feb 26, was unlawful and unconstitutional or tainted with bad faith or carried out with ulterior purposes and an abuse of statutory power.
The plaintiff also sought a declaration that Section 124B, which prohibit "activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy" is unconstitutional, null and void for being vague and/or overbroad or ambiguous and disproportionate in its scope.
They argued that it contravenes Articles 5, 8 or 10 of the Federal Constitution.
They also want a declaration that the acts and conduct of the second and third defendants in commencing or continuing the said investigation against the fourth and fifth plaintiffs in their capacity as advocates and solicitors violates client solicitor privilege protected pursuant to the Evidence Act 1950 and Legal Profession Act 1976 or the Criminal Procedure Code.
