THE 76th witness, Dr Noor Aishah Rosli, will not be allowed to continue giving evidence as an expert witness in the inquest into the death of Zara Qairina Mahathir after Coroner Amir Shah Amir Hassan ruled that she could no longer serve in that capacity during the proceedings.
The Coroner said permitting the 51-year-old witness to continue testifying as an expert would create a perception that the court was condoning non-compliance with legal requirements governing professional practice.
“Allowing her to continue giving evidence would create a perception that could affect the administration of justice, as it would appear to recognise a conscious non-compliance with a clear prohibition under the law,” he said.
Dr Noor Aishah had testified for two days from Monday as a registered counsellor and child clinical psychology practitioner.
However, she acknowledged that she was registered only with the Malaysian Board of Counsellors and was not as a child clinical psychologist under the Allied Health Professions Act 2016 (Act 774).
In oral submissions yesterday and this morning, inquest conducting officer Nahra Dollah objected to Dr Noor Aishah’s continued testimony, arguing that she did not fulfil the legal requirements under Act 774 to provide expert evidence in the relevant field.
Nahra submitted that Dr Noor Aishah’s entire testimony given in her capacity as an expert witness should be rejected.
However, Amir Shah clarified that the objection was not an assessment of the witness’s credibility or the quality of her professional opinions.
Instead, he said the issue involved a broader legal question — whether an individual who is prohibited by statute from practising a particular profession could still be recognised as an expert witness in that same field.
The Coroner said the court was required to consider two separate legal frameworks: Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1950, which allows expert opinions based on specialised knowledge and experience, and the Allied Health Professions Act 2016, which regulates professional standards and makes unauthorised practice an offence.
Amir Shah said a further issue concerned the evidence already presented, including Dr Noor Aishah’s complete report, which had been marked as Exhibit I-299.
He noted that an inquest is a special fact-finding proceeding intended to establish the truth and does not operate as an adversarial trial between opposing parties.
Therefore, he ruled that the most appropriate course was to retain all evidence and reports already recorded, while postponing the decision on whether the materials could be admitted and the legal weight they should carry until the conclusion of the inquest.
He said the final determination would consider the entirety of evidence presented and the closing submissions by all parties.
Earlier, lawyer Datuk Ram Singh, who represents one of the children linked to the case, argued that due to the alleged failure to comply with legal requirements, Exhibit I-299 and all of Dr Noor Aishah’s oral opinions should be rejected entirely as expert evidence.
Meanwhile, Amir Shah said lawyers Shahlan Jufri and Nurul Rafeeqa Abdul Mutolip, representing Zara Qairina’s parents, argued that since an inquest is a process to establish facts rather than a dispute between opposing parties, evidentiary rules should be applied with greater flexibility.
The inquest resumes tomorrow. - July 15, 2026
.jpg)
