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) Hasanah Abdul Hamid is an "aggrieved person" under the law.
Justice Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, who chaired the bench, gave the defence a week to file the submission and set Feb 26 for mention.
Earlier, when questioned by Hamid, lawyer 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 succeeds 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.
DPP Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar, appearing for the government and the MACC, argued that Hasanah is not an "aggrieved person" as Section 28A(8) and (9) of the CPC allows a suspect's right to access to counsel to be suspended during detention.
Another judge presiding on the bench, 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 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 Aug 29, 2018, to assist the 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
