Malaysia High Court strikes out Daim family challenge to police investigation

Malaysia’s High Court in Kuala Lumpur struck out a suit on November 3, 2026, brought by Toh Puan Na’imah Abdul Khalid, her two sons and two lawyers against the Prime Minister, the Inspector-General of Police and the government. The suit challenged a police investigation into an alleged attempt to topple the government, according to The Star and The Edge.

Justice Indra Nehru Savandiah allowed the defendants’ application to strike out the originating summons. The Star reported that the court made no order as to costs. In her decision, the judge said there was no cogent evidence before the court to establish that the ongoing police investigation was conducted in bad faith.

The plaintiffs had argued that public comments by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim might have influenced the investigation. The judge said, as reported by both outlets, that the alleged connection between those comments and the investigation was unsupported by facts. The investigation, she said, was independent and based on a police report.

The Edge also reported the judge’s view that the two lawyer-plaintiffs’ role as advocates and solicitors for Na’imah and her children did not, by itself, establish legal professional privilege in all circumstances. The suit had raised a claim that investigating the lawyers in that capacity violated protections for solicitor-client communications.

The plaintiffs were Na’imah, widow of the late former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin; her sons Muhammed Amir Zainuddin and Muhammed Amin Zainuddin; and lawyers Amir Zharif Abdullah and Muhammad Nizamuddin Abdul Hamid. They named Anwar, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Mohd Khalid Ismail and the government as defendants.

The Star reported that the suit was filed in March and challenged an investigation under Section 124B of the Penal Code following a police report dated February 26. The plaintiffs sought declarations that the investigation was unlawful or unconstitutional, or involved bad faith, ulterior purposes or an abuse of statutory power. They also challenged Section 124B itself, arguing that it was vague or overbroad and inconsistent with rights under Articles 5, 8 or 10 of the Federal Constitution.

The Edge reported that the police report was made by a local editor. It alleged that a group, including Na’imah, planned to use at least five international media outlets to put pressure on Anwar and former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief Tan Sri Azam Baki. Na’imah and Nizamuddin rejected the allegations. The Edge quoted Nizamuddin calling them the “mother of all lies” and reported Na’imah describing them as “false and preposterous”.

Section 124B concerns activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy. The Edge reported that the provision carries a possible prison term of up to 20 years. That is the penalty stated in the provision, not a sentence imposed in this case.

The decision leaves the police investigation unblocked by this suit. The court’s stated reason for striking out the challenge was that the plaintiffs had not provided cogent evidence of bad faith, including evidence connecting Anwar’s alleged public comments to the investigation. The ruling, as reported, addresses the legal challenge to the investigation; it does not establish that the alleged plot occurred.

The case also put the scope of Section 124B and claims about constitutional rights and legal professional privilege before the court. The available reports describe the plaintiffs’ arguments and the judge’s reasons for striking out the suit; they do not report a declaration that Section 124B is unconstitutional.

The Edge reported that a lawyer for Na’imah confirmed she would appeal the November 3 decision. The reports give no appeal date. Any further court proceedings would clarify whether the challenge to the investigation or the constitutional arguments will be considered on appeal.

For readers following the case, the key distinction is between the High Court’s decision to strike out the suit and the separate allegations that prompted the police investigation. The ruling reported so far concerns the first; the alleged scheme remains an allegation in the accounts provided.