Daim, wife advised to file application to quash charge at criminal court

LUMPUR: Former Finance Minister Tun Daim Zainuddin and his wife, Toh Puan Na’imah Abdul Khalid, should have applied to the criminal court and not the civil court to strike out the charges against them for failing to declare their assets, it was pointed out.

Senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin said if the application to quash the charge is heard in the civil court through a judicial review, all evidence related to the case will be revealed in the court concerned.

“Therefore, the application to quash the charge should be made in the criminal court. The application to stay proceeding (of a criminal case) should be done in the relevant (criminal) court,” he said during the online proceeding before Judge Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh, Bernama reported.

Also at the proceeding was lawyer Mervyn Lai, representing Daim and Na’imah.

The court then ordered all parties involved to file additional submissions before or on March 1.

Earlier, Liew told the court that he did not object to the application by Daim and Na’imah to amend several paragraphs in their application for leave to initiate a judicial review against the Malaysian Anti-corruption Commission’s (MACC) investigation against them.

The amendment is about the notice served under Section 36(1) of the MACC Act 2009 to Daim and Na’imah.

On Jan 29, Daim was charged in the Sessions Court for failing to comply with a notice to declare his assets, which include several luxury vehicles, companies and properties in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Pahang, Negri Sembilan, Perak and Kedah.

Earlier, on Jan 23, Na’imah was charged in the same Sessions Court for failing to comply with a notice to declare her assets, which include Menara Ilham and several other properties in Kuala Lumpur and Penang.

Daim, 85, Nai’mah, 66, and their four children, Asnida, 62, Md Wira Dani, 45, Muhammed Amir Zainuddin, 28, and Muhammed Amin Zainuddin, 25, and Ilham Tower Sdn Bhd had applied for leave on Jan 10.

They named the MACC and the public prosecutor as the first and second respondents.