.png)
THE High Court was told on Friday (13 June) that the Sessions Court’s rejection of Toh Puan Na’imah Abdul Khalid’s bid to refer legal questions surrounding her asset declaration charge amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
Her counsel, Datuk Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar, submitted that the lower court’s decision had effectively denied Na’imah, widow of the late finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin, her right to a clear understanding of the legal basis for the charge against her under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act.
“The dismissal has deprived the applicant of her fundamental right and failed to ensure that the legal questions central to the case were properly addressed,” Gurdial told Justice K. Muniandy.
Na’imah is seeking a judicial revision following the Sessions Court’s refusal to refer eight legal questions to the High Court. These questions relate to the validity of the charge against her for allegedly failing to declare assets – including Menara Ilham and various properties in Kuala Lumpur and Penang – under Section 36(2) of the MACC Act 2009. The section carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment or a RM100,000 fine.
Gurdial argued that the charge against Na’imah was “purely technical” and suggested it had been brought “perhaps in retaliation” after her cooperation in an investigation involving her late husband yielded no prosecutable evidence.
He said Na’imah had never been classified as a suspect and had only assisted as a witness under Section 36(1)(b) of the MACC Act, which compels individuals to disclose information on assets to the best of their ability.
“Notwithstanding this, the MACC deemed her compliance insufficient – perhaps not sufficient for them to frame a charge against the late Daim. Perhaps in retaliation, they commenced the present charge against the applicant,” Gurdial submitted.
He further argued that the Sessions Court had erred in law by refusing the application on the basis that no constitutional questions were raised, misconstruing the nature of the issues and the charge.
Na’imah originally filed her application on 29 February 2023, seeking interpretation on several provisions of the MACC Act – Sections 30(5), 36(2), and 62 – as well as Section 32(3)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLATFPUAA) 2001.
Justice Muniandy has set 11 July for the continuation of arguments. - June 13, 2025