Muhammad Nizam Adzha bin Zaidi

On the court record

A mixed practice combining anti-trafficking-in-persons defence with civil litigation.

Muhammad Nizam Adzha bin Zaidi appears across the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan), and the reported decisions describe a practice combining criminal defence with civil work. On the criminal side the dominant subject is anti-trafficking-in-persons enforcement — charges under "seksyen 26B(d) Akta Anti Pemerdagangan Orang" (section 26B(d) of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007, Act 670) — in which he appears in the defence of the accused and as respondent, read in some matters with the common-intention provision in "seksyen 34 Kanun Keseksaan" (section 34 of the Penal Code).

The reported matters engage "rayuan ke atas sabitan dan hukuman" (appeals against conviction and sentence) in the trafficking work, and, on the civil side, an application under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 to strike out a pleading as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or as an abuse of process. Appearing as defence counsel, respondent, appellant and defendant, the practice is instructed in defending serious criminal charges and in the interlocutory contests that shape civil disputes.

The work turns on the statutory elements of the Act 670 offences and on the principles of civil procedure. In the trafficking matters the argument concerns whether the prosecution proved the elements of the charge and whether the conviction and sentence were sound; in the striking-out matter whether the pleading is plainly unsustainable and liable to summary termination. The criminal and civil strands share little doctrinally but both turn on close analysis of the pleaded case and the evidence.

The overall profile is a mixed practice combining anti-trafficking-in-persons defence with civil litigation, conducted at first instance and on appeal. The matters turn on Act 670 and the Penal Code on the criminal side and on the Rules of Court on the civil side, rather than on public-law questions, marking a practice with a base across the criminal and civil courts.