This article first appeared in The Edge Financial Daily, on October 20, 2015.

KUALA LUMPUR: How can accompanying a client to lodge police reports be a crime of sabotage against Malaysia’s economy, lawyer Matthias Chang said in court yesterday, as he and a former Umno man seek a review of charges against them for lodging reports against 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).

Addressing the court from the dock, Chang said he had accompanied Datuk Khairuddin Abu Hassan to four overseas police stations and the attorney-general’s office in Switzerland, but did not see how their actions amounted to attempted sabotage of Malaysia’s banking and financial services.

“I am shocked that the public prosecutor had framed the charge as a security offence for merely visiting these places,” the lawyer said, adding that he was “confused” by the charge.

Chang, a lawyer for 39 years, said the prosecution had a duty to explain the sting of the charge.

Both are appearing before High Court judge Datuk Mohd Azman Hussein to review their charge of attempted sabotage of the Malaysian economy, an offence framed under Section 124L of the Penal Code.

Both want the trial to be conducted in the Sessions Court and bail given, pending the outcome of the case.

Their detention is under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012, or Sosma.

They have been accused of committing the offence in France, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore, between June 28 and Aug 26 this year.

On Oct 12, they were charged before magistrate Siti Radziah Kamarudin, but no plea was taken as she had no authority to hear the case.

No bail was allowed since their alleged offence is classified as a security offence under Sosma.

The prosecution intends to use procedures under Sosma, instead of the Evidence Act, to prove their case.

Meanwhile lawyer Salim Bashir, who held a watching brief for the Bar Council, told the judge that the court must be mindful of the liberty of both the persons.

“There must be recourse for justice and fairness in accordance with law,” he said.

Salim said the court must also protect the lawyer-client relationship when the solicitor carries out his duties. Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla submitted that attempts to sabotage the nation’s banking and financial system could not be a security offence, and Sosma could not be abused by the prosecution to prove their case.

He said the prosecution should use the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act to prove their case.

Deputy public prosecutor Mohd Masri Daud said the charge is valid as it is listed in Chapter VI of the Penal Code (offences against the state) and Chapter VIA of the Penal Code, as offences relating to terrorism.

He said Section 130A of the Penal Code defines the term sabotage to mean an act or omission intending to cause harm, among others, to the maintenance of “essential services”.

He said the term “essential services” is defined to include banking and financial services.

In the afternoon, the High Court ruled that the Federal Court should determine the validity of the charge and detention of Chang and Khairuddin. The High Court referred the matter to the apex court under Article 4 of the Federal Constitution as constitutional issues were raised. — The Malaysian Insider