Tun Daim Zainuddin has taken steps to challenge the right against self-incrimination under Section 36(2) of the MACC Act 2009. His lawyer, Rajesh Nagarajan, verified that the application was lodged at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on March 15. Additionally, Daim’s wife, Toh Puan Na’imah Abdul Khalid, also made a similar application on March 5.
In his application, Daim argued that the charge brought against him under Section 36(2) is in conflict with Articles 5 and 8 of the Federal Constitution. The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the public prosecutor have been named as the first and second respondents to the case. Daim was previously charged in the Sessions Court on Jan 29 for failing to comply with a notice to disclose his assets, which encompassed luxury vehicles, companies, and properties in various states.
Earlier in January, Na’imah was also charged in the same Sessions Court for a similar offense of not declaring her assets, which included properties located in Kuala Lumpur and Penang. The entire family, consisting of Daim, Na’imah, and their four children, along with Ilham Tower Sdn Bhd, submitted a request for leave on Jan 10.
The legal proceedings highlight the complexities surrounding the issues of asset declaration and potential implications under the MACC Act 2009. These developments underscore the importance of upholding constitutional rights during legal processes and the role of the judiciary in interpreting and applying the law.
It is essential for individuals facing legal challenges to seek proper legal representation and uphold their rights within the legal framework. The involvement of prominent figures like Daim and Na’imah in such cases further emphasizes the significance of transparency and accountability in matters of public interest.
The application filed by Daim seeks to address key constitutional concerns and potentially shape legal interpretations regarding self-incrimination and compliance with legal notices. These legal actions could set important precedents for future cases involving similar legal issues and constitutional rights in Malaysia.
As the legal process unfolds, it will be crucial for all parties involved to adhere to the principles of justice, fairness, and due process. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the legal landscape in Malaysia and could influence how similar cases are approached in the future.
