A lawyer appearing for former Malaysian External Intelligence Organisation director-general Hasanah Abdul Hamid today said it was his client's right to “consult” and not just “see” a lawyer.

Shahrudin Mohd Ali said this at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, adding that attorney-general Tommy Thomas would be upset if he knew that people like his client were not allowed legal consultation.

"I was only allowed to see Hasanah for five minutes before her remand proceeding. It was just a chat. That does not count as legal consultation.

"'See' does not equate to 'consultation'. Even for our short meeting, the MACC officers were around," he reminded the court.

Hence, Shahrudin said his clients' right to legal consultation after the MACC invoked those two sections on her was a violation of her rights and therefore unconstitutional.

Hasanah filed an originating summons seeking to challenge the constitutionality of Sections 28(8) and 28(9) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which she claims goes against Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution.

Article 5(3) stipulates that arrested individuals must be informed as soon as possible on the grounds of arrest, and must be allowed to consult and be defended by legal practitioners of their choice.

Hasanah was remanded for a total of six days last month, and it was during this period that her lawyers claim she was denied legal representation or consultation.

Sections 28(8) and 28(9) of the CPC gives the investigating authority the power to deny the accused to consult a lawyer.

The MACC had been investigating the former spy chief and seven other government intelligence officers in relation to alleged misappropriation of funds up to US$12 million meant for the recent general election.

'Constitution supreme'

MACC senior federal counsel Norzilati Izhani Zainal @ Zainol said the provision under Article 5(1) was met as Hasanah had met her lawyers twice.

"This is affirmed in the MACC investigating officer's affidavit and can also be seen in the applicant (Hasanah's) lawyer's affidavit," she said.

Norzilati added that Sections 28(8) and 28(9) should not be seen as discriminatory, as Hasanah's meeting with her lawyers showed that her rights were protected.

Hence, Norzilati said, there was no constitutional violation, and as such the originating summons should be dismissed.

Shahrudin, who appeared with lawyer Mohd Khairul Azam Abdul Aziz, counter submitted that his client had the right to the counsel of her choice.

"You cannot suspend the rights of someone based on a section of a statute, as the constitution should reign supreme," he said.

Justice Nordin Hassan fixed Oct 26 for the court to deliver its verdict.