Malaysia Oversight

Prosecution seeks stay of proceedings against Naimah pending appeal

By FMT in September 23, 2025 – Reading time 2 minute
Prosecution seeks stay of proceedings against Naimah pending appeal


Naimah Khalid
Last month, the High Court allowed Naimah Khalid to refer eight questions of law to the Federal Court over her asset declaration charge.
KUALA LUMPUR:

The prosecution is seeking a stay of all High Court proceedings against Naimah Khalid pending its appeal against a ruling permitting her to refer constitutional questions on her asset declaration charge to the Federal Court.

Today’s hearing before Justice K Muniandy was intended to formulate the questions for referral to the apex court.

However, deputy public prosecutor Wan Shaharuddin Wan Laden submitted that there were “special circumstances” warranting a suspension of proceedings pending the disposal of the prosecution’s appeal.

“If the appeal is allowed, the order made by this court on Aug 21 will be set aside, and the order of the sessions court judge in dismissing the respondent’s (Naimah) application will be restored,” he said.

That would render the present hearing pointless, Wan Shaharuddin added.

The court set Oct 8 to hear the stay application.

Naimah’s counsel Gurdial Singh Nijar said the defence would be ready to proceed immediately with the hearing on the questions of law should the court dismiss the prosecution’s application.

Naimah, the widow of former finance minister Daim Zainuddin, claimed trial in the sessions court last January to a charge of failing to comply with the terms of an asset declaration notice issued by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.

In February, she filed an application to refer eight questions of law to the High Court under Section 30(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

On Feb 18, sessions court judge Azura Alwi rejected her application, ruling that it lacked merit and raised no constitutional questions meriting determination, prompting her to file the appeal at the High Court.

However, that ruling was overturned by the High Court, which ruled that the case raised substantial questions warranting further consideration.



Source link