Share
- Gurdial told the court that there was bad faith when the MACC issued the second seizure notice of Ilham Tower just before the expiry of the first notice.
KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 4): The owners of Ilham Tower have been allowed by the High Court to challenge authorities’ June order to seize the building.
Judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh on Tuesday granted Ilham Tower Sdn Bhd the leave, or permission, for the merits of its case against the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to be heard at a date to be determined later.
Ilham Tower at the centre of the case is a 58-storey iconic building in Kuala Lumpur city centre and owned by the late former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin’s family with his wife Toh Puan Na’imah Abdul Khalid.
Datuk Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar submitted on behalf of the company as the lead counsel while senior federal counsel Nurhafizza Azizan objected on behalf of the government.
Ilham Tower is seeking a certiorari to quash the seizure notice on June 3, or any decision made by the respondents as well as a mandamus order directing the respondents, its officers and agents to cancel the seizure notice.
Further, Amarjeet allowed an ad interim stay against the respondents from executing any forfeiture order on the tower pending the hearing of a permanent stay on Dec 1.
Anwar, prosecution named as respondents
Ilham Tower had named investigating officer Mohd Razi Rahhim @ Rahim, deputy public prosecutor Datuk Ahmad Akram Gharib, the MACC and its chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki, the public prosecutor, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the government as respondents.
The judicial review application was filed in June.
Gurdial—who appeared with Rajesh Nagarajan, Sachpreetraj Singh Sohanpal and Abraham Au—told the court that there was bad faith when the MACC issued the second seizure notice of Ilham Tower just before the expiry of the first notice.
The first notice was made in December 2023 under Section 38(1) of the MACC Act 2009. The provision allows the property to be seized for up to 18 months while the owners would have to be charged and the asset forfeited or released at the end of the investigation.
The MACC then issued a second notice under Section 51 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 which allows for a 12-month seizure.
Gurdial contended that the move was made in “bad faith” to extend investigations.
Nurhafizza, representing the Attorney General's Chambers, objected to the judicial review as the matter is under active investigation and leave should not be granted as it would disrupt investigations.
The company had first challenged the first seizure notice but failed to obtain leave due to it being under investigation and the court should give similar consideration to the circumstances, she argued.
Amarjeet had asked how the court could dismiss the possibility of “bad faith” on the part of the MACC, noting that leave could be considered with a lower bar as long as there is an arguable case.
Gurdial pointed out that Azam had issued a statement in 2025 that the tower would be forfeited following the issuance of the second notice when the investigation had yet to be completed.
In the end, Amarjeet decided to grant leave and also fixed Nov 18 for case management and Dec 1 to hear the stay application.
As Penang girds itself towards the last lap of its Penang2030 vision, check out how the residential segment is keeping pace in EdgeProp’s special report: PENANG Investing Towards 2030.
