.JPG "Former Malaysian External Intelligence Organisation chief Datuk Hasanah Abdul Hamid is pictured at the Kuala Lumpur High Court October 25, 2018. u00e2u20acu201d Picture by Miera Zulyana")
PUTRAJAYA, Jan 8 — The Court of Appeal has requested for further submission from the defence team on the issue whether former director-general of Malaysia External Intelligence Organisation (MEIO) Datuk Hasanah Abdul Hamid is an “aggrieved person” under the law.
Justice Datuk Dr Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, who chaired the bench, gave the defence a week to file the submission and set February 26 for mention.
Earlier, when questioned by Hamid, lawyer Datuk Shaharudin Ali, representing Hasanah, said his client was an aggrieved person because she was denied of her constitutional right to legal representation when she was held under remand.
He said if Hasanah succeed in her appeal at the Court of Appeal on her constitutional challenge under Section 28A (8) and (9) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), she would be able to seek damages.
Deputy public prosecutor Datuk Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar, appearing for the government and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), argued that Hasanah is not an “aggrieved person” as Section 28A (8) and (9) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) allows a suspect’s right to access to counsel to be suspended during detention.
Another judge presiding on the bench, Datuk Kamaludin Md Said, then requested the defence team to put in submissions on whether the appeal was academic since Hasanah had been released from remand.
The other judge presiding was Datuk Hanipah Farikullah.
Hasanah has sued MACC and the government for not letting her consult with her lawyer while she was remanded for six days from August 29, 2018 to assist investigation into allegations of abuse of power and misappropriation of government funds for the 14th general election (GE14).
In her originating summons, Hasanah sought a declaration that the notification letter issued by the MACC under Section 28A (8) and (9) of the CPC prohibiting her from consulting her lawyer while being held under remand contravened Articles 5(3) and 8 of the Federal Constitution.
She claimed that Section 28A is unlawful, null and void, and cannot be enforced against her.
In October 2018, High Court Judge Datuk Nordin Hassan held that Section 28A (8) and (9) were not discriminatory in nature as it did not deny the right to counsel, but it was rather the suspension of those rights during the remand period. — Bernama
