Ex-MEIO chief’s suit against MACC, govt dismissed

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court yesterday dismissed a suit filed by Malaysia External Intelligence Organisation (MEIO) former director-general Datuk Hasanah Abdul Hamid for disallowing her right to counsel when she was under remand by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

The suit she filed against MACC and the government was in relation to her remand for investigations into alleged abuse of power and misappropriation of government funds for the 14th General Election.

Judge Datuk Nordin Hassan, in dismissing the suit, said Section 28A (8) and (9) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with the rights of a person under arrest, was constitutional and a good law.

“Both subsections do not deny the right to counsel, but it is rather the suspension of those rights during the remand period,” he said, adding that the section was not discriminatory in nature.

He said the section did not infringe on Articles 5(3) and 8 of the Federal Constitution, which state that when a person is arrested, he or she shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner.

Nordin cited two Federal Court decisions that the right to counsel started on the day of the arrest, but could not be exercised if it impeded police investigations or administration of justice.

“The right should not be exercised to the detriment of any investigation by the police.

“Apart from these two Apex Court decisions, there are no other pronouncement by the Apex Court to contradict this decision.

“I have no reason to depart from the decision of the Apex Court. As such, the applicant’s application is hereby dismissed,” he said, making no order as to costs.

Hasanah’s counsel, Datuk Shaharudin Ali, said he would appeal the decision.

Hasanah filed the originating summons on Aug 30, seeking a declaration that the notification letter issued by MACC under Section 28A (8) and (9) of the Criminal Procedure Code, prohibiting her from seeing her lawyer while under remand contravened Article 5(3) and 8 of the Federal Constitution.

As such, she claimed Section 28A was invalid, null and void, and could not be enforced against her.