PKR vice-president Rafizi Ramli and former bank employee Johari Mohamad obtained a stay today in the hearing of the Banking and Financial Institution (Bafia) charge against them.

The stay was granted by the High Court in Shah Alam pending the hearing of their appeal to declare that the charge is unconstitutional.

Justice Muhammad Yazid Mustafa allowed the appeal after expressing concern that the appeal involves the constitutional rights of the two accused.

The case was fixed to be heard in the Sessions Court in Shah Alam from Aug 10 to 12.

This follows the Sessions Court turning down in June the applications by both Rafizi and Johari to refer questions on the legality of the charge against them to the High Court.

"Since the application did not come from the court or from the prosecution at the Sessions Court but from these applicants, the court rejects the said application," Zamri had ruled.

The two are represented by lawyers N Surendran and Latheefa Koya.

Rafizi, 38, claimed trial to disclosing Public Bank customer-profile documents comprising balance summaries relating to the National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd, National Meat and Livestock Sdn Bhd, Agroscience Industries Sdn Bhd and NFC chairperson Mohamad Salleh Ismail, to media consultant Yusuf Abdul Alim and to The Star reporter Erle Martin Carvalho, at the PKR headquarters in Petaling Jaya on March 7, 2012.

Johari, 44, was charged with conspiring with Rafizi to commit the alleged offence at the same place and date.

Rafizi and Johari on April 2 filed the three questions to be referred to the High Court.

They argued that their charge under Bafia for revealing the accounts of the National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd (NFC) was unconstitutional as the relevant section they were charged under was repealed two years ago.

Rafizi and Johari also said the charge was unconstitutional as, like the controversial and draconian Sedition Act 1948, the prosecution need not prove intention.

Thirdly, Section 87(2) of Bafia is self-incriminating in that it requires suspects to answer all questions posed.

Based on the three questions, the charge violated Article 5 of the Federal Constitution on the liberty of a person.