Latest news with #Gurdial
The Star
16 hours ago
- Politics
- The Star
Na'imah charge ‘likely retaliation'
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.
Barnama
a day ago
- Politics
- Barnama
Sessions Court's Refusal To Refer Legal Questions Denied Fundamental Right, Says Na'imah's Counsel
KUALA LUMPUR, June 13 (Bernama) -- Counsel for Toh Puan Na'imah Abdul Khalid informed the High Court today that a lower court's refusal to refer eight questions of law had effectively denied her a fundamental right, leaving critical legal issues central to the case unresolved. Na'imah filed the application in the Sessions Court in February last year to refer the legal questions to the High Court. Her counsel, Datuk Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar, submitted that the Sessions Court had misconstrued the law governing applications to refer constitutional questions under Section 30 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, thereby denying the applicant clarity on her legal position and resulting in a miscarriage of justice. "This oversight calls for rectification in order to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and ensure that the applicant's rights are fully respected," said Gurdial. He made the submission during the hearing of Na'imah's application to review the Sessions Court's decision to dismiss her request for a referral of legal questions in the undeclared assets case, heard before Judge K. Muniandy today. Gurdial contended that Na'imah was called to assist in the investigation against her late husband, Tun Daim Zainuddin, strictly in her capacity as a witness, and at all material times, she was never regarded as a co-suspect. "Na'imah complied with the section 36(1)(b) notice requiring her to disclose information in respect of assets to the best of her ability and she had made a statement on oath in this respect. "The MACC took the view that her compliance was insufficient and perhaps in retaliation, the MACC commenced the present charge against my client," he said. He added that based solely on the alleged non-compliance, a witness (Na'imah) is now subjected to criminal prosecution and faces the prospect of a custodial sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to RM100,000.
The Sun
a day ago
- Politics
- The Sun
Na'imah's Legal Referral Denied; Trial Dates Set
KUALA LUMPUR: Counsel for Toh Puan Na'imah Abdul Khalid informed the High Court today that a lower court's refusal to refer eight questions of law had effectively denied her a fundamental right, leaving critical legal issues central to the case unresolved. Na'imah filed the application in the Sessions Court in February last year to refer the legal questions to the High Court. Her counsel, Datuk Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar, submitted that the Sessions Court had misconstrued the law governing applications to refer constitutional questions under Section 30 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, thereby denying the applicant clarity on her legal position and resulting in a miscarriage of justice. 'This oversight calls for rectification in order to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and ensure that the applicant's rights are fully respected,' said Gurdial. He made the submission during the hearing of Na'imah's application to review the Sessions Court's decision to dismiss her request for a referral of legal questions in the undeclared assets case, heard before Judge K. Muniandy today. Gurdial contended that Na'imah was called to assist in the investigation against her late husband, Tun Daim Zainuddin, strictly in her capacity as a witness, and at all material times, she was never regarded as a co-suspect. 'Na'imah complied with the section 36(1)(b) notice requiring her to disclose information in respect of assets to the best of her ability and she had made a statement on oath in this respect. 'The MACC took the view that her compliance was insufficient and perhaps in retaliation, the MACC commenced the present charge against my client,' he said. He added that based solely on the alleged non-compliance, a witness (Na'imah) is now subjected to criminal prosecution and faces the prospect of a custodial sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to RM100,000. Justice Muniandy fixed July 11 for the parties to continue their submissions. On Jan 23, 2024, Na'imah was charged in the Sessions Court 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 on Sections 30(5), 36(2) and 62 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009, as well as Section 32(3)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLA) 2001 to the High Court. However, on Feb 18 this year, Sessions Court Judge Azura Alwi dismissed Na'imah's application on the ground that it disclosed no merit, holding that no constitutional questions arose for determination.
The Sun
a day ago
- Politics
- The Sun
Sessions Court's refusal to refer legal questions denied fundamental right, says Nai'mah's counsel
KUALA LUMPUR: Counsel for Toh Puan Na'imah Abdul Khalid informed the High Court today that a lower court's refusal to refer eight questions of law had effectively denied her a fundamental right, leaving critical legal issues central to the case unresolved. Na'imah filed the application in the Sessions Court in February last year to refer the legal questions to the High Court. Her counsel, Datuk Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar, submitted that the Sessions Court had misconstrued the law governing applications to refer constitutional questions under Section 30 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, thereby denying the applicant clarity on her legal position and resulting in a miscarriage of justice. 'This oversight calls for rectification in order to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and ensure that the applicant's rights are fully respected,' said Gurdial. He made the submission during the hearing of Na'imah's application to review the Sessions Court's decision to dismiss her request for a referral of legal questions in the undeclared assets case, heard before Judge K. Muniandy today. Gurdial contended that Na'imah was called to assist in the investigation against her late husband, Tun Daim Zainuddin, strictly in her capacity as a witness, and at all material times, she was never regarded as a co-suspect. 'Na'imah complied with the section 36(1)(b) notice requiring her to disclose information in respect of assets to the best of her ability and she had made a statement on oath in this respect. 'The MACC took the view that her compliance was insufficient and perhaps in retaliation, the MACC commenced the present charge against my client,' he said. He added that based solely on the alleged non-compliance, a witness (Na'imah) is now subjected to criminal prosecution and faces the prospect of a custodial sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to RM100,000. Justice Muniandy fixed July 11 for the parties to continue their submissions. On Jan 23, 2024, Na'imah was charged in the Sessions Court 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 on Sections 30(5), 36(2) and 62 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009, as well as Section 32(3)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLA) 2001 to the High Court. However, on Feb 18 this year, Sessions Court Judge Azura Alwi dismissed Na'imah's application on the ground that it disclosed no merit, holding that no constitutional questions arose for determination.
New Straits Times
a day ago
- Politics
- New Straits Times
Dismissal of Na'imah's application to refer 8 legal questions a miscarriage of justice, court told
KUALA LUMPUR: The Sessions Court's dismissal of Toh Puan Na'imah Abdul Khalid's application to refer eight legal questions to the High Court related to her failure to declare assets case is a miscarriage of justice. Na'imah's lawyer, Datuk Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar, said the High Court should exercise its discretion to intervene and correct the miscarriage of justice caused by the erroneous dismissal under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act. "Given the subordinate court's misapplication and misconception of the law, it is imperative that the High Court steps in to remedy the situation in accordance with Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code, ensuring that justice is served and the rights of the applicant are duly protected. "In exercising its revisionary powers, this honourable court may, if deemed necessary in the interest of justice, call for and examine the record of any proceedings before a subordinate criminal court to assess the correctness, legality of propriety of any finding, sentence or order, as well as the regularity of the proceedings of that court." Gurdial said this when he made a submission during the revision application of the Sessions Court decision before High Court judge K. Muniandy. He said the Sessions Court's dismissal of Na'imah application deprived her of her fundamental right, "thereby failing to ensure that the legal questions, which are central to the case, were properly addressed". "The Sessions Court not only denied Na'imah clarity on her legal position, but also occasioned a miscarriage of justice. "This oversight calls for rectification in order to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and ensure that Na'imah rights are fully respected." The latest application by Na'imah, the widow of former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin, came after Sessions Court judge Azura Alwi dismissed her application to refer legal questions after finding that it lacked merit as there were no constitutional issues raised in the case. On Feb 29 last year, Na'imah, 68, filed an application to refer legal questions pertaining to Section 30(5), 36(2) and 62 of the MACC Act, as well as Section 32(3)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act to the High Court. On Jan 23 last year, Na'imah was charged at the Sessions Court for failing to comply with a notice to declare her assets. Gurdial said the charge relates to an offence that is purely technical as she was issued with a Section 36(1)(b) notice in which she was asked to assist in investigations against Daim as a witness. He said at all material times, Na'imah was never a co-suspect. "She complied with the notice requiring her to disclose information in respect of assets to the best of her ability. She has made a statement on oath in this respect. "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 her." He said power must be given to the MACC to investigate a crime, but to impose criminal sanctions on a witness assisting in an investigation is disproportionate to the object that the law seeks to achieve. He said solely due to this alleged non-compliance, a witness who is not a suspect assisting in an investigation is now slammed with criminal charges and faces the threat of imprisonment up to five years and a fine of up to RM100,000. July 11 was set for the continuation of submissions by the prosecution led by deputy public prosecutor Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin.
