KUALA LUMPUR (Feb 2): Former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin and his wife Toh Puan Na’imah Abdul Khalid are seeking to amend the judicial review application they filed last month to add that they are also seeking to quash the charges against them.
The amendment-application seeking leave to amend their original application was filed on Jan 30, after charges were preferred against Daim on Monday and against Na’imah last week.
In the amended judicial review application, Daim and Na’imah are seeking a certiorari order to quash the charge they each face — of not abiding by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC's) notice to declare their assets.
Prior to this, they had sought to stop the MACC’s investigations and prevent the charges being imposed on them. They had also sought to have their bank accounts unfrozen and have other seized assets, which include Ilham Tower, to be returned to them.
Daim and Na’imah are both charged under Section 36(2) of the MACC Act 2009, with not abiding by the notice.
They claim that the MACC notice given to them was ambiguous.
Na’imah is charged with not declaring 12 of her purported assets, while Daim is charged with allegedly not declaring 71 assets that the former finance minister and politician owns.
In detail, Daim is charged with not declaring one Amanah Saham bank account; seven vehicles including a Rolls-Royce, an Austin Morris, and a Jaguar XJS HE; 38 companies; and 25 properties, some of which are linked to the companies he owns.
Among the companies mentioned were Ibu Kota Developments Sdn Bhd, Maya Seni Holdings Sdn Bhd, Menara Ampang Sdn Bhd, Dream Cruiser Sdn Bhd, Landbelt Corporation Sdn Bhd, Avillion Bhd, Avillion Hotel Group, Admiral Cove Development Sdn Bhd, and Avillion Hotels International Sdn Bhd, to name a few.
Some of the 25 properties are located in Ritchie Condo on Persiaran Ritchie and Desa Kuda Lari in Kuala Lumpur, Avillion Port Dickson, Avillion Admiral Cove, and Admiral Marina and Leisure Club in Negeri Sembilan, to name a few.
In an affidavit in support by lawyer Alicia Sabrina Gomez, from Messrs Tommy Thomas, Gomez affirmed that the notice and statement that sought the declaration of assets under Section 36(1) are considered unlawful, and in the event the notices are declared void and quashed, the predicated offence on non-compliance with those notices would similarly be void and quashed.
Gomez said the proposed amendments are necessary for giving further and better particulars to accurately set out their case for judicial review.
The hearing for judicial review was done before High Court judge Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh last month, and he fixed March 4 to deliver the court’s decision on whether to grant leave or not.