Lawyers representing Toh Puan Nai’mah Khalid have strongly denied allegations that their client and her two sons could not be contacted by police in connection with an ongoing investigation.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, the legal team said the claims created a misleading impression about the level of cooperation provided by Nai’mah and her family throughout the investigation.
“The allegation is misleading and paints a completely inaccurate picture of our client’s cooperation,” the lawyers said.
According to the legal team, a written response was submitted on the very same day the notice from the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) was received, adding that Nai’mah and her sons have remained accessible and fully cooperative through their legal representatives.
The statement was issued in response to remarks by Bukit Aman Criminal Investigation Department (CID) director Datuk M Kumar regarding an investigation paper that has been referred to the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) under Section 124B of the Penal Code.
Nai’mah’s lawyers further claimed that the investigation stemmed from a police report lodged by a former employee who had been dismissed from a team associated with their client.
They argued that mobilising government resources based on complaints from a terminated employee reflected a failure of institutional due diligence and resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of public resources.
“Deploying the machinery of government based on the grievances of a dismissed employee demonstrates a serious lapse in due diligence and wastes public resources, including the recording of statements from 17 individuals,” the statement read.
The legal team also questioned the decision to investigate the matter under Section 124B of the Penal Code, as well as the application of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA).
According to the lawyers, the use of security-related laws in the case raised concerns over unequal treatment when compared to other reports that allegedly did not receive similar action from authorities.
They pointed to a previous police report involving PKR Deputy President Nurul Izzah Anwar, claiming no statements were recorded and no witnesses were called despite allegations concerning lobbying activities involving a Washington-based consulting firm.
The lawyers alleged that the differing approaches reflected what they described as selective prosecution against private citizens who do not align with the current political establishment, while individuals with close ties to those in power were allegedly treated differently.
At the same time, they warned against the use of SOSMA in what they characterised as an unsubstantiated employment-related dispute involving private individuals.
The legal team argued that invoking security legislation in such circumstances could create a troubling precedent and undermine the rule of law.
On May 26, Datuk M Kumar stated that immigration records showed Nai’mah and her two sons had left the country shortly after a police report was lodged.
He also confirmed that the investigation paper had been submitted to the Attorney General’s Chambers and that police were awaiting further instructions.
The case is being investigated under Section 124B of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 20 years upon conviction.
