Latest news with #JamilHussin
Free Malaysia Today
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Muhyiddin's bid to refer legal questions to apex court to be heard before another judge
On April 4, Muhyiddin Yassin filed an application to refer questions of law regarding the Sedition Act 1948 to the Federal Court to challenge the validity of certain provisions in the Act. PETALING JAYA : Former prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin's application to refer legal questions relating to the Sedition Act 1948 to the Federal Court will now be heard before the judge who is hearing the main sedition case. High Court judge Azhar Abdul Hamid allowed the application by defence lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad for the legal questions to be heard before Criminal High Court 4 judge Jamil Hussin, Bernama reported. Amer, who represented Muhyiddin, said in his submissions that the legal questions arose from the sedition case faced by his client. 'The sedition case is the main case and has been set for trial at the Criminal High Court 4. Documents relating to the case have also been submitted to the court. 'We have made an application to refer legal questions relating to the sedition case. It has been registered before Azhar. 'Hence, we request that the application be heard before Jamil since the main case is being tried before that judge,' Amer said. Deputy public prosecutor Abdul Malik Ayob did not object. On April 4, Muhyiddin, 77, filed an application to refer questions of law regarding the Sedition Act to the Federal Court to challenge the validity of certain provisions in the Act. He had previously pleaded not guilty to a charge of making seditious remarks during the Nenggiri by-election campaign at Dewan Semai Bakti Felda Perasu, between 10.30pm and 11.50pm on Aug 14, 2024. The alleged seditious remarks concerned his claim that he was not invited by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to be sworn in as prime minister following the 15th general election (GE15), despite allegedly having the support of 115 out of 222 MPs at that time. He is charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act, which is punishable under subsection 4(1) of the same Act with a maximum fine of RM5,000, up to three years' imprisonment, or both if convicted.
Free Malaysia Today
08-05-2025
- Free Malaysia Today
Investigating officer's presence required at remand hearing, rules court
The High Court has set aside the remand of two suspects who were being investigated under the Poisons Act 1952 and Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, ruling that it was unlawful. KUALA LUMPUR : The High Court here has set aside a magistrate's remand order, holding that the absence of the investigating officer at the hearing rendered the proceedings unlawful. Justice Jamil Hussin said Section 117(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code must be strictly complied with. 'Based on my reading, that provision only provides for the police officer conducting the investigation, and not any other policeman or representative of the investigating officer, to be present (at) a remand proceeding,' he said. In a revision application brought by two suspects, Jamil said the record of remand proceedings presided over by a magistrate at the Jinjang remand centre on Tuesday showed that the investigating officer was absent. 'Instead, a police sergeant major was present in the place of the investigating officer, Megat Nazmi Megat Aziz,' he said in the decision made yesterday evening. The suspects were being investigated under Section 30(3) of the Poisons Act 1952 and Section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. On that basis, Jamil said, the magistrate should have dismissed the remand application. 'As such, the remand order to detain them for two days is also unlawful,' he said. The judge also dismissed the prosecution's submission that the revision application had become academic as the two suspects had been charged in court. 'This revision was filed on Tuesday, the same day as the remand was granted, when the two suspects were still under the remand. Therefore, it is not academic,' Jamil said. In any case, the judge ruled that the High Court was empowered to determine the validity of the detention under the provision. Lawyer Collin Arvind Andrew had submitted that Section 117(1) should be given a strict and literal interpretation, as the provision seeks to deprive a person of his or her liberty. 'The term 'police officer making the investigation' in Section 117(1) must refer to the investigating officer and no one else,' said Collin, who was assisted by Shahlini Sree Kumar and Ernie Sulastri. Deputy public prosecutor Khalijah Khalid however argued that any other representative of the police officer could stand in, provided that he or she had knowledge of the case. A substitute officer should be allowed to stand in for an investigating officer who is indisposed, said Khalijah who was assisted by deputy public prosecutor Noor Dayana Mohamad.
