KUALA LUMPUR: Senior lawyer Rosli Dahlan has failed to initiate a legal bid to challenge the seizing order of his four Amanah Saham Nasional Bhd (ASNB) accounts by the police last year.
Based on the broad grounds of judgment sighted by the New Straits Times, High Court Judge Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh said that the deputy public prosecutor (DPP) had not acted in bad faith in issuing the seizure order.
Rosli, in a different matter earlier this year succeeded in his first judicial review leave application and quashed the freezing of his and his wife's bank accounts as well as a travel ban imposed on him by the police.
In the first judicial review, the police had revoked all the unlawful freezing orders of his bank accounts and the unlawful travel ban imposed against him.
However, to circumvent the first judicial review, police had on Jan 12 sought a seizure order of only four of Rosli's ASNB accounts.
Rosli however challenged this in a second judicial review by arguing that this too was illegal and contrived to justify his continued persecution.
The decision by Wan Ahmad Farid on Aug 14 was in respect of the second judicial review challenging the seizure order issued by a Deputy Public Prosecutor of the AG Chambers (AGC). This second judicial review is against the AGC.
The judge declined to interfere and said, amongst others, that the investigation should be completed as it might also exonerate Rosli.
He said it was not to suggest even for one moment, that the applicant was guilty of any offence.
"He is not. It is far from that. He is not even charged in any court of law," he said.
The judge said the court would not interfere with the investigation process unless mala fide (bad faith) was shown.
He said Rosli's case was anchored solely on the allegation that the DPP's exercise of power under Section 50 of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds from Unlawful Activitis Act (AMLATFPUA) is based on the false information given to him by the police investigating officers.
"The DPP is alleged to have acted on false information by the police investigation team. That, without more, cannot, in any stretch of legal imagination constitute mala fide unless there is a further allegation of collusion between police and the DPP. There was none.
"Hence, this application for leave is refused. In view that this case is of public interest, I am not making any order as to costs," Wan Ahmad Farid said in his ruling.
Lawyer Datuk DP Naban represented Rosli, while senior federal counsel Rahazlan Affandi Abdul Rahim appeared for the police and the government.
It was previously reported that following the first judicial review on April 3, Rosli and his wife's accounts were unfrozen but the lawyer's four ASNB accounts were continuously frozen and subject to seizure under Section 50 of AMLATFPUA on Jan 18 this year.
Rosli filed the first judicial review application in December, seeking, among other matters, an order for certiorari (a judicial review) against the police and the government to unfreeze his accounts and lift the travel ban against him, as a result of the police linking him with a complaint lodged by AirAsia over i-Serve, which the lawyer said had no relation to him.
Rosli had alleged in his second judicial review application that the examination against him and subsequent seizure of his assets were not actually done to assist police in their investigation but rather for a collateral purpose to victimise and embarrass him for reasons that are unlawful under the law.
The judge said he understood the reason why Rosli was granted leave in his first judicial review application, but said that case was different from the second one with regards to the issue of the DPP's good faith in exercising his powers.
Editor's Note: The title and content of this story has been updated to reflect the accurate legal challenge filed by Rosli regarding the seizure notice, rather than the freezing of the accounts. The error is regretted.