KUALA LUMPUR (April 6) : The Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) has objected to Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia's (Bersatu) application for leave (permission) to commence judicial review on the freeze order imposed on its party accounts in relation to purported money-laundering.
Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan told the High Court here on Thursday (April 6) that the frozen accounts in question are the subject matter of party president and former prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s criminal charges.
Muhyiddin was charged on March 10 with four counts of abuse of power for allegedly using his position as then PM to secure gratification amounting to RM232.5 million from corporate entities, which the prosecution said was funnelled directly into Bersatu. He is also facing two charges of money laundering involving RM195 million his party received. Muhyiddin has claimed trial and the judge has set May 26 for hearing.
Hence, the purported judicial review application is seen as the civil court violating the criminal court’s jurisdiction, which is why the AGC is objecting to it, Shamsul said, adding that Section 9 of the Government Proceedings Act stipulates that the AG's powers cannot be reviewed.
“The two accounts (being frozen) of RM130 million and RM70 million are the subject matter in the criminal charges. There is another charge of RM5 million from Shah Alam. Hence, this matter (review) is better dealt with in the criminal court and not the civil court,” he added.
Shamsul also said the Immigration Department had imposed a travel ban on Muhyiddin from traveling overseas, but an affidavit from an immigration officer stated that the ban was lifted but another was imposed by the court after the Bersatu president was charged.
Last March 8, Muhyiddin filed the application for judicial review along with Bersatu's executive secretary Datuk (Capt) (Rtd) DATUK Muhammad Suhaimi Yahya. They named the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and 18 of the commission’s officers, including chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki, as well as the Immigration Department and the Malaysian government, as respondents.
In their application, the party wants a declaration from the court that the MACC should not follow the directives of the leaders of the ruling party who are in government, or the directives of the prime minister and/or deputy prime minister, by enlisting MACC officers to initiate investigation against Bersatu, which it claimed had caused the issuance of the allegedly wrongful freeze order.
The Bersatu president is also seeking an interim order that will allow him to move freely and make trips abroad without restrictions. According to the court document sighted by The Edge, he said he is scheduled for a trip on April 14 and 15 to London, where he will give the keynote speech at the 1st Annual Conference of the Global Council for Political Renewal (GCPR).
Bersatu claims account freeze done in bad faith
Rosli Dahlan, who appeared with Chethan Jethwani for Bersatu, said leave should be granted as there are a lot of questions concerning the freeze order and its implications.
Rosli highlighted that Muhyiddin was the one being investigated, yet it was the party’s accounts being frozen. “The party is not the one that has been charged,” Rosli pointed out.
Rosli also said the freeze order was a mala fide (bad faith) act by the present government, to cause bad publicity against Bersatu prior to Muhyiddin being charged, and followed by Wednesday's report that the Bersatu secretary general Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainuddin’s son had been charged as a director of a company linked to alleged submissions of fake invoices related to the cooking oil subsidy.
He also said the freeze is a deliberate attempt to cripple the party ahead of six state elections that would be called soon.
Rosli further pointed out that the judicial review challenge is made under Section 44A of the Anti Money Laundering, Anti- Terrorism Financing and Proceeds from Unlawful Activity 2001 (AMLATFPUA), which had never been done before. “Hence, this review application is not a frivolous and vexatious application,” the counsel said, adding that the freeze order was wrong.
Section 44A, which involves giving variation or revocation of order to freeze a property, is an amendment inserted in AMLATFPUA in 2014 by the Parliament to prevent abuse by the authorities.
Rosli also said the two affidavits filed by the MACC and the Immigration Department should not be accepted by the court as they only stated the extension of the travel ban on Muhyiddin after he was charged. “There is no reason given by the Immigration Department to impose the ban and if it were not for Muhyiddin asking about it last March 6, he would not know of such a ban. The authorities are duty bound to inform the plaintiff when imposing such a ban but in this case, he wasn't (informed),” he said.
Rosli also cited how the High Court had previously granted leave to hear the merits of a judicial review brought by i-Serve Online Mall Sdn Bhd to challenge the freeze order of its accounts by Bank Negara Malaysia.
To this, Justice Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid, who is hearing Bersatu’s application, reminded Rosli that he was not bound by another High Court’s decision.
Shamsul also pointed out that the i-Serve Online case was different, as there was no criminal prosecution involved in that.
Rosli went on to ask the court to consider interim orders for funds to be released from Bersatu's accounts before a decision is made by the court, so that the party can pay its operational expenses. On this, the court told Bersatu to discuss the matter with the AGC.
Ahmad Kamal then set May 17 to deliver his decision on whether to grant leave for the review application.