The questions stemmed from her claim that she was denied access to legal counsel during her detention and questioning by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in February 2024.

High Court Justice Mahazan Mat Taib ruled that the application could not proceed as the issue of whether Syarul Ema had been lawfully detained remained in dispute, and therefore, the threshold requirement under Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 was not met.

The proposed questions concerned whether Sections 28A(3), 28A(8), and 28A(9) of the Criminal Procedure Code are invalid for being inconsistent with Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution.

The Criminal Procedure Code provisions relate to the right of an arrested person to consult a lawyer, which is guaranteed under Article 5(3).

Another issue raised was whether limiting a detainee’s access to legal counsel under those provisions amounts to a disproportionate restriction that is contrary to Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

The court fixed May 11 for case management to set hearing dates for Syarul Ema’s originating summons against MACC.

Syarul Ema filed the suit on Feb 26, 2024, naming MACC as the respondent and alleging a breach of her constitutional right to legal representation following her arrest on Feb 16, 2024.

It was reported that she was being investigated over alleged “rewards” received in connection with assisting NGOs in securing grants.

She claimed she was denied access to her lawyers on the day of her arrest.

Counsel Latheefa Koya appeared for Syarul Ema, while senior federal counsel Nur Irmawatie Daud represented the Attorney-General’s Chambers.