Justice Noor Ruwena Nurdin, in her broad grounds of judgment, held that Hamid had established sufficient merit to justify the transfer.

“The court found merit in the questions of law of unusual difficulty raised by the applicant. It is only on these grounds that the application is allowed,” she said.

She also held that it was premature to characterise the matter as double jeopardy, as Hamid and the company were charged under different statutory provisions of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act, despite the charges being based on the same facts.

Both cases will be heard together before Ruwena.

Hamid was originally charged before sessions court judge Suzana Hussin on April 5, 2023.

He is accused of offering a bribe of RM500,000 a year for 15 years to one Tan Ser Lay for the benefit of former communications and multimedia minister Annuar Musa, allegedly to expedite the takeover of the management and concession of Kuala Lumpur Tower.

That same day, Hydroshoppe was charged separately in the sessions court with a similar offence, with Hamid claiming trial on the company’s behalf in his capacity as director.

The charge against Hamid was framed under Section 16(b)(B) of the MACC Act, while the charge against Hydroshoppe was brought under Section 17A(1)(a) of the same Act.

Section 16(b)(B) criminalises the giving of gratification, while Section 17A(1)(a) imposes corporate liability for corrupt acts committed by a company’s associated persons.

Lawyers Joshua Tay and Tang Jia Yern represented Hamid, while deputy public prosecutor Ifa Sirrhu Samsudin appeared for the prosecution.