KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 17): The prosecution in former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin’s criminal trial has questioned the validity of a medical certificate and his recent hospitalisation, saying that the certificate is not complete and should not be allowed by the court.
On Wednesday (Oct 16), via a letter to the court, Daim’s lawyers had written to the judge to postpone proceedings for the day, as Daim had been admitted to the hospital and that they had additional submissions to make on a separate application before the court.
Sessions Court judge Azura Alwi was slated to give her decision on Thursday, on the prosecution’s previous application to compel Daim, aged 86, to undergo a mental evaluation to assess whether he is fit to stand trial under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
In court on Thursday morning, Deputy Public Prosecutor Law Chin How had questioned the validity of the medical certificate which was sent to the court and to the prosecution. He said that the medical certificate lacked pertinent particulars, such as the reason Daim was admitted, how long would he be admitted for, and that it was only signed by the nurse in charge, and not a doctor.
“If we study the medical certificate, there is no reason given as to why Daim was admitted and his illness was not explained,” Law said.
Law’s co-counsel Mohamad Fadhly Mohd Zamry then requested that the doctor and nurse come and testify as to Daim’s condition in court. The lawyer also stated that Daim had only come to court one time since he was charged in January, and he has not attended court since that day. Law asked the judge to consider asking Daim to come to court.
“Nothing states that he is unfit to come to court… This delay shouldn’t be allowed by the court. Rules must be followed. I understand you are sympathetic to his plight, but rules must be followed,” Mohamad Fadhly said to Azura.
However, Daim’s lawyer Datuk Gurdial Singh Nijar said that the medical certificate wasn’t why they were asking for a postponement.
Gurdial said that the defence was asking for the postponement because they wanted to refer questions of law to the High Court. He said that he needed time to address the application in court, as he had just joined as counsel for Daim.
“I think there is some misunderstanding, as we are not asking for an adjournment because Tun Daim is in the hospital. We are asking because of the application to refer a question of law to the High Court,” he said.
Previously, Azura had allowed Daim not to attend her decision on his mental health assessment, which was slated for Thursday. She added that Daim was not physically fit to sit for prolonged hours of the trial when it starts, and noted that “it’s another bridge we have to cross”.
However, after hearing arguments from both sides, Azura said that Daim needs to attend the next hearing date and set Nov 20 to hear additional submissions on his mental health evaluation, and also a case management on the hearing of the application to refer questions of law to the High Court.
The questions which Daim is seeking to refer to the High Court are whether Sections 32, 36, and 62 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act infringe on the right against self-incrimination, and/or the right to not to be compelled to produce incriminating evidence to be used in a proceeding against oneself, and/or the right to fair trial, and therefore infringe on Articles 5, 8, and 121 of the Federal Constitution, and is unconstitutional and void.
On Jan 29, Daim pleaded not guilty to charges of failing to comply with an MACC notice to declare his assets, including several luxury vehicles, companies, and properties across Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Pahang, Negeri Sembilan, Perak, and Kedah.
His wife, Toh Puan Na’imah Abdul Khalid, 66, was charged on Jan 23 with failing to comply with a notice to declare her assets, which include Menara Ilham and several properties in Kuala Lumpur and Penang.
They are both charged under Section 36(2) of the MACC Act, which carries a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment and a maximum fine of RM100,000 upon conviction.