KUALA LUMPUR (Dec 9): The High Court has dismissed applications by Sabah Deputy Chief Minister Datuk Seri Bung Moktar Radin and his wife Datin Seri Zizie Izette A Samad to challenge a Sessions Court’s decision to order the duo to enter their defence in a graft trial.
In delivering his brief decision on Friday (Dec 9), judicial commissioner Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid said that he agrees with the prosecution, and that their preliminary objection was allowed.
“The preliminary objection is allowed, and the applications are dismissed,” he said.
Later on Friday, the lawyer confirmed with the media that they will be appealing against the decision.
Bung Moktar, wife fail in bid to review court order
December 9, 2022 10:42 AM
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here has rejected the applications by Kinabatangan MP Bung Moktar Radin and his wife, Zizie Izette, to review a lower court ruling ordering them to enter their defence on charges of corruption and abetment.
Judicial commissioner Azhar Abdul Hamid said the court agreed with the prosecution’s preliminary objection against the review bid.
The prosecution, represented by deputy public prosecutor Law Chin How, objected to the couple’s review bid on grounds of technicality.
Court to decide on preliminary objection in Bung Moktar, Zizie Izette’s review application on Dec 9
By Bernama – November 11, 2022 @ 4:14pm
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here today fixed Dec 9 to decide on the prosecution’s preliminary objection against Datuk Seri Bung Moktar Radin and his wife’s application to review the Sessions Court’s decision in ordering them to enter their defence on the charges of corruption and abetment.
High Court Judicial Commissioner (JC) Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid set the date after hearing submissions from deputy public prosecutor Law Chin How and lawyer M. Athimulan who appeared for Bung Moktar, as well as Datuk K. Kumaraendran who appeared for Datin Seri Zizie Izette Abdul Samad.
“I needed more time to deliberate on the written and oral submissions by both parties,” said the JC.
Earlier, Law argued that both the accused cannot present affidavits and notes of proceeding for a revision because in a criminal case, any records must come from the court and not from the couple by way of affidavits.
Meanwhile, the couple’s lawyer, Athimulan and Kumaraendran submitted their replies in rebuttal against the prosecution’s objection.
“The question is whether filing a motion is legally sustainable. The legal process of inviting the court to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction by way of motion is to secure the ends of justice and not to abuse the process of the court.
“Neither the Court of Judicature Act nor the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that only a letter must be sent for criminal revision. Either by letter or by motion, no applicant can compel this court to hear the revision at the whim and caprice of the applicant. The law is clear,” Athimulan submitted.
Meanwhile, Kumaraendran cited Indian case law and argued that the High Court should not dismiss a revision application based on procedural irregularities.