THE Federal Court is set to determine two constitutional questions arising from asset declaration charges faced by Toh Puan Na’imah Abdul Khalid, after the High Court allowed part of her application for a legal reference.
The development comes amid a firm rebuttal by her legal team of allegations that she had been involved in any attempt to topple the government.
Counsel Muhammad Nizamuddin Abdul Hamid dismissed claims that the widow of former Finance Minister Tun Daim Zainuddin had engaged in discussions or issued instructions aimed at undermining Malaysia’s parliamentary democracy.
“There was no discussion about toppling the government; all that is the ‘mother of all lies’,” he told reporters at the High Court on Wednesday.
He added that throughout his representation of Na’imah, all parties had focused solely on the facts of the case.
“The family of Allahyarham Tun Daim Zainuddin has the right to defend itself from all slander and accusations thrown at them, whether in court or in the media,” he said, stressing that the matter extended beyond allegations by the government or the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.
Describing narratives circulating online, including a police report and international media coverage, as “untrue, excessive and baseless”, Nizamuddin confirmed that two lawyers acting for Na’imah had been named in the police report.
“I myself am one of those named in the police report, and the other is Amir Zharif Abdullah,” he said.
Separately, High Court judge Datuk Mohd Arief Emran Arifin ruled that two legal questions would be referred to the Federal Court of Malaysia for determination.
“However, I will only refer two questions to the Federal Court. That is all,” he said after considering written submissions from both the defence and prosecution.
The questions concern Sections 30(5) and 36(2) of the MACC Act 2009. Among the issues to be examined is whether the provisions infringe the right against self-incrimination, including the right not to be compelled to produce evidence that may be used against oneself in criminal proceedings.
They also touch on the right to silence, the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, with arguments that the provisions contravene Articles 5 and 8 of the Federal Constitution and are therefore unconstitutional and void.
The second question centres on whether the two sections satisfy the three-stage proportionality test under Article 8 of the Federal Constitution.
The prosecution was led by Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin of the MACC, while Na’imah was represented in the constitutional reference proceedings by Datuk Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar.
On 29 February 2024, Na’imah filed an application seeking to refer questions relating to Sections 30(5), 36(2) and 62 of the MACC Act 2009, as well as Section 32(3)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001.
A Sessions Court judge had earlier dismissed the application on the basis that it lacked merit and raised no constitutional issue.
However, on 21 August 2025, the High Court allowed her application to review that decision, with judge K Muniandy holding that the proposed questions were neither trivial nor vexatious but raised important legal issues warranting judicial scrutiny.
Na’imah, 68, is charged with deliberately providing a written sworn statement that allegedly failed to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Section 36(1)(b) of the MACC Act 2009, dated 8 November 2023.
The notice was served on her by an MACC commissioner on 14 November that year. She is accused of failing to declare certain assets at the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya on 13 December 2023.
The assets in question include interests in Ilham Tower Sdn Bhd and Ilham Baru Sdn Bhd, two Mercedes-Benz vehicles, and eight properties, including Menara Ilham and a residence in Bukit Tunku, as well as six other buildings and parcels of land in Taman Tunku and Bukit Tunku, Jalan Cantoment Road in Penang, and Jalan Anthinahapan in Taman Tun Dr Ismail.
The charge under Section 36(2) of the MACC Act carries a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment and a maximum fine of RM100,000 upon conviction. - March 4, 2026
