Justice Roslan Mat Nor said the attorney-general, who is also the public prosecutor, has the discretion under the Federal Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code to frame charges against Shariffa Sabrina Syed Akil.

“It is for him to prove the charges in court based on evidence and she (Shariffa Sabrina) could raise her defence. She is entitled to an acquittal if the prosecution fails in its task,” he said in a written judgment posted on the judicial website yesterday.

In a motion filed on June 25, Shariffa Sabrina said the charges were defective and had been brought in bad faith. She sought an acquittal and discharge from all three charges.

On March 22, 2022, the 62-year-old environmentalist claimed trial before sessions court judge Ahmad Faizadh Yahya to the three counts of unlawful occupation of state land.

She was charged with committing the offences at 2pm on June 10 and 11, 2021 at Lot 26148, GM4135 in Mukim Bentong; Lot 1053, PM0053 Mukim Ulu Dong; and Lot 10061, GM1572 Mukim Tras, all in Raub district.

The land was allegedly turned into a resort area and used by Tanah Aina Fareena Cafe & Restaurant, Tanah Aina Fahad Glamping Resort, and Tanah Aina Farrah Soraya Exclusive Eco Resort for business activities.

The charges were framed under Section 425(1)(a) of the National Land Code 1965 and, upon conviction, provide for a maximum fine of RM500,000 or imprisonment of up to five years.

Shariffa Sabrina and her daughter, Sharifah Farhana Syed Yusof, have an interest in Tanah Aina Sdn Bhd, which is said to be the owner of the holiday resort.

In her affidavit in support of the application, she said she would suffer a miscarriage of justice if the charges were not set aside.

She also said the charges violated her constitutional right under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution to life and liberty.

She said the prosecution should have charged Tanah Aina, as none of the applications filed with the Pahang state land authorities were made in her own name.

In his judgment, Roslan said Shariffa Sabrina was entitled to raise the defects as part of her defence during the trial.

He said she was not prejudiced and would get a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.

Roslan, who dismissed the application on July 31, said the charges were not professed in bad faith and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.

“It is only the applicant’s perception against the prosecution. There is no room for speculation as the allegations must be proven based on evidence,” he said.

Shariffa Sabrina’s lawyer, Rajesh Nagarajan, said she has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.