KUALA LUMPUR: The prosecution today raised concerns over the medical certificate and absence of Tun Daim Zainuddin from court since the former Finance Minister was charged in January for failing to declare his assets.
Deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Law Chin How informed the Sessions Court that Daim, 86, was absent from today’s proceedings and that the prosecution had received a medical certificate from the defence issued by Assunta Hospital yesterday, without any explanation as to why he had been admitted.
“We are requesting the hospital to provide a full report on Tun Daim’s condition, and we want the doctor treating him to appear in court to clarify his current health status.
“We also request that the nursing sister who signed the medical certificate appear in court to explain the reason for Tun Daim’s hospital admission, as no reason has been given for his admission or discharge date provided,” he said.
Regarding Daim’s application to amend a notice seeking to refer questions of law related to the charges against him, Law questioned whether the amendment was genuine or instructed by Daim, as it was only made yesterday and not earlier.
According to Law, the application for Daim to undergo a mental evaluation to determine his fitness to stand trial must be heard before proceeding with the hearing related to the questions of law.
“This is because, if it is determined that Tun Daim is unfit to attend court, all subsequent proceedings will be rendered null and void,“ he explained.
DPP Mohamad Fadhly Mohd Zamry added that court records show the accused has only attended court once since being charged in January, and the defence has repeatedly sought to excuse Daim’s attendance through medical certificates from Assunta Hospital.
“This matter requires careful consideration, as it has implications for the court, given that the accused has failed to comply with court directives as per the bail conditions granted to him.
“The reason for the accused’s absence cannot be relied upon, as it does not adhere to the circular or guidelines issued by the Chief Justice concerning adjournments or an accused’s failure to attend court,” he explained.
Mohamad Fadhly stated that the medical certificate did not indicate that Daim was “unfit” to attend court today and that the signature on the certificate was from a nursing sister, not a medical practitioner.
“The court must issue clear instructions to the accused if he seeks an adjournment or exemption from court attendance. All established regulations must be followed, so this can serve as a reference not only for this court but also for any Sessions or Magistrates Court,“ he said.
Meanwhile, Daim’s lawyer, Datuk Dr. Gurdial Singh Nijar, confirmed that his client had been admitted to Assunta Hospital.
“This is a misunderstanding. We are requesting that the prosecution’s application for Tun Daim to undergo a mental evaluation be postponed, not because he was admitted to the hospital, but because I have only recently been appointed as his lawyer and there have been amendments to the application to refer to questions of law.
“I also received instructions to amend Tun Daim’s application to refer to questions of law before my client was admitted to the hospital. Therefore, both parties need additional time to prepare their arguments,“ he said.
Judge Azura Alwi then said she did not want to escalate the issue of Daim’s absence from court, as she had already issued an order exempting him from attending today’s proceedings.
“The court has set Nov 20 for the hearing of the prosecution’s application for the accused to undergo a mental evaluation, and the accused must be present for that proceeding,“ she added.
On Jan 29, Daim, whose full name is Che Abdul Daim Zainuddin, pleaded not guilty to charges of failing to comply with a notice to declare his assets, which included luxury vehicles, companies, and properties in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Pahang, Negeri Sembilan, Perak, and Kedah.
His wife, Toh Puan Na’imah Abdul Khalid, 67, was charged on Jan 23 with failing to declare assets, including Menara Ilham and several properties in Kuala Lumpur and Penang.
They are charged under Section 36(2) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009, which carries a maximum prison sentence of five years and a fine of up to RM100,000 upon conviction.
