Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has filed for a review of the High Court's decision dismissing his application for permanent access to his passport to perform his official duties as deputy prime minister.
On Feb 3, High Court judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah, in dismissing the application for permanent access, had however allowed Zahid temporary access to his passport for the purpose of applying for a diplomatic passport, after which he was to surrender both passports to the court.
Zahid's passport was surrendered to the court as an additional bail condition after he was charged with 47 counts of corruption, criminal breach of trust and money laundering involving Akalbudi Foundation funds, which are currently at the defence stage.
Lawyer Aiman Abdul Rahman, representing Zahid, when contacted after case management today, confirmed the review application and that the Court of Appeal had set March 27 to hear the matter.
He said the online case management was conducted before the Court of Appeal deputy registrar Mohd Khairi Haronand and also attended by deputy public prosecutor Abdul Malik Ayob.
In the notice of motion filed on Feb 13, Zahid asked the Court of Appeal to consider allowing him permanent access to his passport subject to any conditions imposed by the court.
In his supporting affidavit, Zahid said Sequerah had erred in dismissing his application to obtain the document permanently.
The Bagan Datuk MP said the decision would prejudice his rights and responsibilities as a country leader as he would have to apply to the court for access to his passport every time he needed to go abroad for work.
"As an individual who holds one of the highest positions in the country, it is seen as impractical and an inconvenience for me to apply to the court every time I want to go abroad for work purposes.
"Therefore, it is appropriate for the Court of Appeal to consider that the approval of the application would bring good and continuity to the administration of the country, which is the responsibility of every Malaysian," he said.
Zahid also said that the application was mala fide or prejudicial, and promised to continue giving his full cooperation in resolving his court cases.