Court orders Na'imah to formally file for gag order against Anwar

 

The Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court has ordered Daim Zainuddin’s widow Na’imah Abdul Khalid to file a formal application if she wishes to pursue a gag order against Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

“I will not make any ruling (on this application) today. If you (wish to pursue), you may file a formal application,” judge Azura Alwi told Na’imah’s lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan after hearing the accused’s oral application in today’s case management.

Rajesh had earlier submitted five grounds for the gag order, claiming Anwar’s public statements, which were reported in the media between August 2024 and July 2025, concern the accused and her family.

“We have five grounds (on) why we are seeking judicial intervention - sub judice, abuse of process, right to a fair trial, prosecutorial independence, and prejudice to the defence.

“(The prime minister) is not a normal person. The statements emanating (from him) carry institutional weight and inadvertently will not only influence public perception… it may also influence witnesses and the justice environment in this country.

“As such, what will effectively happen is that the accused would be tried in the court of public opinion, even prior to the adjudication of the court, which is completely unfair (as) it is the court that must decide the fate of the accused and not a politician,” he submitted.

He claimed that Anwar’s continued public commentary constitutes interference with the judicial process.

The applicable test to these claims, he added, is for the court to determine whether such conduct by a prime minister creates a real risk of unfairness, or brings the administration of justice a new disrepute.

“Actual prejudice may not be proven (but) apprehended prejudice suffices.

“It is our position that it is clear (that) due to the position of the prime minister, as the head of the executive, there will be extreme prejudice to the accused, and this court possesses inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.”

DPP: No solid evidence

Deputy public prosecutor Fadhly Zambry said the prosecution was deeply surprised by the application as they were only informed of it five minutes before the proceeding began.

Fadhly also rebutted Rajesh, saying that there is no solid evidence to prove Anwar’s comments, referred from the 17 media reports, were enough to prove a possible unfair trial for Na’imah.

Lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan

"There is no solid evidence to say that the comments made (by Anwar) have caused an unfair trial to occur against the accused, since the trial has not yet been held, parties have not yet presented their defence, and the prosecution has yet to present any evidence in court.

“Based on this matter, (the accused’s) claim that there will be unfairness on the part of the prosecution in conducting (the case) is merely an assumption.

“The comments are general in nature, involving the charges in court. It does not mean to question any trial that took place or evidence presented in this case,” he said.

ADS

Na’imah, 69, was charged in 2024 with one count of failing to abide by a MACC notice under Section 36(1) of the MACC Act 2009, on her assets disclosure.

She was accused under Section 36(2) of the Act, which carries a maximum of five years in jail and a fine of up to RM100,000.

The assets she allegedly did not disclose involved multiple lands, properties, and Mercedes-Benz vehicles.

Na’imah’s challenge bid

In another matter, the Kuala Lumpur High Court earlier decided to hear Na’imah’s application to challenge several provisions under the MACC Act 2009 again.

She had filed the application in 2024, where she claimed some provisions under the Act violate her constitutional rights, in connection with charges over allegedly undisclosed assets.

The court was initially scheduled to form the questions for the Federal Court’s referral today.

However, judge Emran Ariffin decided to hear arguments from lawyers Gurdial Singh Nijar and Abraham Au, as well as the prosecution led by Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, Law Chin How and Fadhly all over again, despite judge K Muniandy having allowed her application last year.

Emran said Na’imah’s application needs to be heard in accordance with Section 84 of the Courts Judicature Act 1964 to determine whether the proposed constitutional questions would pass the threshold under the Section before such questions are referred to the Federal Court.

The court then fixed March 6 and 13 to hear the application. - Mkini