“As usual, he is required to attend,” judge Azura Alwi told both prosecutors and defence lawyers, after fixing Nov 20 to hear further submissions.

Azura issued the directive as there was confusion surrounding Daim’s absence when the matter was called up today.

An accused is required to be present at all criminal proceedings unless exempted by the court.

Deputy public prosecutors (DPPs) Law Chin How and Fadly Zamry told the court of Daim’s absence, saying his lawyers had only submitted a letter signed by a nurse at Assunta Hospital to state that he has been warded there.

Azura then clarified that she had on Aug 27 dispensed with Daim’s attendance for today when she was scheduled to deliver her ruling.

However, the judge agreed to defer her ruling to allow newly appointed defence counsel Gurdial Singh Nijar to make additional oral submissions on the application.

The prosecution had applied to the court for an order that Daim undergo a mental evaluation at a government hospital after a medical report submitted by the defence revealed that  had suffered several strokes, which led to him falling on several occasions, resulting in bone fractures.

DPP Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin said the prosecution’s primary concern was Daim’s mental state, and whether he was fit to stand trial.

He called for the court to assess Daim’s mental state pursuant to Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Daim, 86, has not been present in court on medical grounds since he was charged in January for failure to comply with the terms of an asset declaration notice issued under Section 36(2) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009.

He is accused of failing to declare his ownership in 38 companies, 19 plots of land in Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Kedah and Kuala Lumpur, as well as six properties.

He is also accused of failing to declare his ownership of Amanah Saham Nasional Bhd and Amanah Saham Nasional accounts, as well as seven luxury vehicles.

In a separate charge, his wife, Naimah Khalid, is accused under the same provision of failing to declare her ownership of various companies, several plots of land and two vehicles.

Meanwhile, the court fixed case management on Nov 20 to hear Daim and Naimah’s applications to challenge the constitutionality of certain provisions in the MACC Act and the existing money-laundering laws.

The application, made under Section 30 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, is for Azura to send the matter to the High Court for it to refer questions of law to the Federal Court.