Latest news with #SalimBashir
New Straits Times
01-07-2025
- Politics
- New Straits Times
Bar lauds Federal Court decision on Peceaful Assembly Act provision
KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian Bar welcomed the Federal Court's declaration today that Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 was unconstitutional. Its president, Mohamad Ezri Abdul Wahab, said the provision, which criminalises failure to provide prior notice to the police before holding an assembly, has long been the subject of concern within the legal and civil society communities. He said the Malaysian Bar had consistently opposed criminalisation of peaceful assemblies due to procedural irregularities. "We have held that the requirement to notify the police should be administrative in nature, not punitive. "This decision vindicates that position. Criminal sanctions for failure to notify authorities are not only excessive but have had a chilling effect on public participation and freedom of expression," he told the New Straits Times. Meanwhile, former Bar president Salim Bashir called the ruling "groundbreaking and progressive". He said the Federal Court characterised the notice requirements as prohibitory rather than restrictive. Restrictions which are necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the federation or any part of the federation or public order are allowed under Article 10(2)(b) of the Federal Constitution, he said. Earlier today, the apex court declared it unconstitutional to criminalise the failure to notify the police five days in advance before holding a peaceful assembly. Delivering the unanimous decision by a five-member bench, Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 imposes a penalty that goes beyond what is allowed under Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of speech, assembly and association.
New Straits Times
29-06-2025
- Politics
- New Straits Times
MACC faces legal hurdles in global asset freeze pursuit
KUALA LUMPUR: While Malaysian authorities have the legal power to freeze suspected illicit assets through court-issued restraining orders, enforcing those orders abroad is more complex, often requiring separate legal applications in foreign jurisdictions. A legal expert believes the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) may face an uphill battle in its ongoing efforts to trace high-value assets allegedly linked to the late Tun Daim Zainuddin, his family members, and proxies. The challenge lies in cross-border legal procedures, which may require the commission to either file separate court applications in the respective countries or rely on formal mutual legal assistance (MLA) agreements to take action. Former Malaysian Bar Council president Salim Bashir said such restraining orders, issued under Section 44 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLA), were typically the first step in freezing assets suspected of being linked to criminal activities. "A Malaysian court order allows enforcement agencies to request mutual legal assistance from the Attorney General's office of foreign countries, where the assets are located, to trace and enforce the order," he told the New Sunday Times. However, he said not all foreign jurisdictions accepedt Malaysian court orders automatically. "Some countries require a separate application to register the local order before any action can be taken," he said. He added that the feasibility of enforcement depended on the country's legal requirements and whether Malaysia had existing mutual legal assistance (MLA) arrangements with the jurisdiction involved. Salim said that although AMLA gave enforcement agencies and the public prosecutor broad powers, they must still convince the court that the assets were tied to unlawful activities. "The standard is based on the balance of probabilities. There must be cogent evidence, and it must be proven to be credible enough to satisfy the court on the need for a forfeiture order against the assets of an individual." He added that any attempt to seize assets — whether local or foreign — must also comply with Article 13 of the Federal Constitution, which prohibits individuals from being deprived of their property except in accordance with the law. Earlier, it was reported that MACC was now expanding its investigation to five additional countries as it tracked down high-value assets linked to Daim, a former finance minister.
Free Malaysia Today
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Separate AG, PP roles now to avoid loss of public confidence, govt told
The government says it is still studying a proposal to divest the attorney-general of his role as public prosecutor. PETALING JAYA : Lawyers want Putrajaya to act quickly to divest the attorney-general (AG) of his prosecutorial role, saying any further delay will only deepen public perception that the government lacks the political will to carry out promised reforms. They said the desired change—one that is crucial for the Malaysian justice system— has been talked about for many years, but remains elusive. Salim Bashir. Lawyer Salim Bashir said the current administration, led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, must 'walk its talk' following vigorous feasibility studies conducted both locally and abroad by a government task force over the past two years. The public expects the government to expedite the process, he said. 'Enough consultations and studies have been made. The separation must be done urgently to bolster public confidence,' said Salim, a former Malaysian Bar president. The lawyer was commenting after law and institutional reform minister Azalina Othman Said said last week that the government was still in the midst of studying the matter. Azalina expressed hope that a decision can be reached before the next general election. Last December, Anwar told the media that a draft Cabinet paper on the subject is expected to be ready by the middle of this year. Acknowledging the complexity of the issue, Anwar said the paper may take time to complete as it involves numerous amendments to the law, including the Federal Constitution. Pakatan Harapan had, in its election manifesto in 2018, pledged to put the change into effect, a promise it repeated at the 15th general election four years later. Barisan Nasional followed suit, saying in 2022 that it was necessary to eliminate any conflict of interest and reduce excessive power placed in the hands of the AG. Haniff Khatri Abdulla. Both PH and BN are now part of the unity government. Once separated, all prosecutorial powers will be vested in the public prosecutor, while the AG will act as the government's legal advisor. Lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla chastised Azalina for the delay. 'We will not move forward if the government does not put in the political effort to attend to it.' Hanif proposed that a royal committee, under the auspices of the Conference of Rulers, be formed to study the separation of roles. Lawyer Rafique Rashid Ali said there will be occasions when the AG may not be in the best position to deal with a criminal matter himself. 'He may find himself in a position of conflict of interest from time to time, when the interest of his client—the government—may not fully coincide with public interest,' he said. Rafique said experience has shown that such situations tend to arise when politicians are prosecuted for criminal offences. Rafique Rashid Ali. He said that, since 2018, politicians aligned to the government of the day had their charges withdrawn while their trials were ongoing. In certain other cases, the prosecution's appeals against acquittals were struck out on flimsy grounds such as the petition of appeal being filed out of time, he added. 'Most of these corruption charges involve millions of ringgit, and the optics are that a pliant AG is appointed to execute the agenda of those in power, ' said Rafique, adding that precious judicial and prosecutorial time and resources are wasted in the process.
New Straits Times
16-05-2025
- New Straits Times
FRU crash: Nine reckless, dangerous driving charges causing death, align with legal principles
KUALA LUMPUR: The nine charges against a lorry driver involved in Tuesday's crash that killed nine Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) men are in line with legal principles, said legal experts. Former Malaysian Bar Council president Salim Bashir said charging the driver with nine counts of reckless or dangerous driving causing death was in accordance with Section 163 of the Criminal Procedure Code. "This ensures that the accused is not prejudiced by the legal process The law stipulates that every distinct offence must be addressed in a separate charge and tried independently," he said. "Distinct offences are defined as separate acts committed against different victims, even if they fall under the same legal provision," he said. Salim, a senior criminal lawyer, added that such charges were a standard practice to ensure accused were adequately informed of the allegations against them. "The accused must be clearly notified of each alleged offence, with sufficient time to prepare a defence," he said. "In cases involving multiple fatalities, it is crucial to specify the names of the victims, as well as the dates and times of the alleged offences," he said. Earlier today, the lorry driver, Rudi Zulkarnian Mat Radi, 45, was charged in the Sessions Court with nine counts of dangerous driving causing death. He pleaded not guilty to all charges framed under Section 41(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987. The alleged offences stem from the crash at Km15, Jalan Sungai Manik, in Hilir Perak at around 9.05am on May 13. Criminal lawyer Datuk Geethan Ram Vincent also said the charges aligned with the law and were not unusual. "The public prosecutor has the discretion to frame the charges as nine separate counts or as a single charge listing all victims," he said. "While the offences occurred as part of the same incident, the law permits separate charges for each victim to ensure clarity in prosecution," Geethan added. He said the court would consider the fact that the offences occurred in a single transaction during sentencing. "If convicted, the court may impose imprisonment sentences to run concurrently, but the fines will be treated as separate," he said.
Free Malaysia Today
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Court of Appeal must decide on IO's presence at remand hearings, says ex-Bar chief
Former Malaysian Bar president Salim Bashir said a Court of Appeal ruling will bind lower courts and bring clarity to the law. PETALING JAYA : A Court of Appeal decision is crucial to settle the legal uncertainty over whether a magistrate can issue a remand order without the investigating officer being present, a former Malaysian Bar president said. Salim Bashir noted that conflicting High Court rulings have created confusion. 'Regardless of the outcome, a Court of Appeal ruling would bind lower courts and bring clarity to the law,' he told FMT. He said that until the Court of Appeal resolved the matter, the latest High Court ruling had to be followed. Salim, who previously led the Bar Council's criminal law committee, was commenting on a High Court decision last week that quashed a remand order because of the IO's absence, declaring the proceedings unlawful. Justice Jamil Hussin ruled that Section 117(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires strict compliance. He said the provision only allows the investigating officer, and not any other policeman or representative of the investigating officer, to appear at a remand hearing. Jamil said the magistrate at the Jinjang remand centre should have rejected a remand application since the IO was not present. In a High Court ruling last July, Justice Abu Bakar Katar also quashed a remand order after stating that a police sergeant could not stand in for the IO. Both the rulings contradicted a High Court ruling last July by judicial commissioner Kan Weng Hin, who held that a remand order remains valid if another police officer who is knowledgeable about the case appears in the IO's place. Lawyer Rafique Rashid Ali said the matter should be heard by an enlarged panel of Court of Appeal judges due to its impact on law enforcement and suspects' rights. 'Magistrates need to question the IO on what was done in the last 24 hours to justify further detention. This is critical to ensure suspects' liberties are protected,' he said. Section 117(1) of the CPC allows police to seek additional detention if investigations cannot be completed within 24 hours. Rafique said if the ruling goes against the prosecution, Parliament could still amend the law. FMT has reached out to Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar for comment.
