Lawyer Nizamuddin Hamid said the decision means any disclosure to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission can only be carried out with the consent of the firms’ director and their client, Naimah Khalid.
In a statement, Nizamuddin said the court also ordered that cause papers be served to MACC to allow Naimah, the widow of Daim Zainuddin, the opportunity to be heard before the court on the two companies’ application against their secretary.
“An affidavit affirmed by our client revealed that the company secretary had been served with an order under Section 30(1)(b) of the MACC Act, compelling the disclosure of all documents related to the two companies.
“This followed MACC’s move to seize and forfeit Menara Ilham, a property owned by Ilham Tower, despite no conviction made against any party,” he said.
Nizamuddin said Naimah reaffirmed that the company secretary must act according to the Companies Act 2016 and established laws, and as such, any “reckless compliance with MACC’s order constitutes a violation of the law”.
Ilham Tower and Ilham Baru were represented by Nizamuddin, a senior partner at Zharif Nizamuddin, while the company secretary was represented by Ambbi Sundrambal.
The injunction is effective until Oct 9 or any further order made by the court, according to the ruling made by High Court judge Wan Amin Wan Yahya.
On July 23, the High Court had set tomorrow to hear Naimah’s bid to commence judicial review proceedings to challenge MACC’s second seizure of Ilham Tower.
Naimah is seeking to quash MACC’s June 5 seizure notice, alleging that it constitutes an abuse of process, and accusing Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim of exerting undue influence over the matter.
Her legal team previously described the second seizure – undertaken under Section 51(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (Amla) – as “pure harassment”, noting that MACC had already seized the building in December 2023.
Ilham Tower, owned by Daim’s family, was initially seized under Section 38(1) of the MACC Act 2009.
According to MACC, the deputy public prosecutor authorised the second seizure after concluding that it was linked to alleged offences under Section 4(1) of Amla, specifically, transactions designed to avoid reporting requirements.
Naimah’s action names several respondents, including MACC investigating officer Rahi Rahhim @ Rahim, deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Akram Gharib, MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki, MACC, and Anwar.