KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 15 — The High Court today acquitted former prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin of four charges involving Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd's funds, as the prosecution today said it does not want to proceed with trial on those charges for now.

In this trial, Muhyiddin faced seven charges:

• four counts of alleged power abuse to obtain RM225.3 million in bribes for his party, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (from Nepturis Sdn Bhd, Datuk Seri Azman Yusoff, KCJ Engineering Sdn Bhd, Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd and Mamfor Sdn Bhd), and
• three counts of alleged money laundering involving money that Bersatu received from Bukhary Equity.

Following the High Court's decision after the prosecution's request for a discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA), Muhyiddin now only faces three power abuse charges involving RM25.3 million in alleged bribes for his party Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia in relation to Jana Wibawa projects.

High Court judge Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin delivered her decision this afternoon on whether to only grant a DNAA or to acquit Muhyiddin on those four charges.

Ultimately, the judge decided to acquit, in the interests of justice.

The judge noted that the prosecution did not give any reasons besides saying it did not wish to proceed with the four charges, and that the prosecution had left it to the court to decide.

“I’m of the view in the interests of justice, the discretion of the court is to be exercised in favour of the accused.

“So with that, the court discharges and acquits the accused from those four charges only. And we will continue with this case, with the three remaining charges related to Jana Wibawa,” the judge said. 

Just before lunch break today, deputy public prosecutor Datuk Ahmad Akram Gharib informed the High Court that the prosecution had decided to not continue with four of the seven charges in Muhyiddin's trial, saying this was after the prosecution had looked at the case as a whole.

"With that, the prosecution respectfully applies for Section 254(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to be applied, to apply for an order from this court for a DNAA on the accused. We apply for DNAA only on those charges," he said.

Muhyiddin's lawyers had however urged the High Court to acquit Muhyiddin on the four charges related to Bukhary Equity, instead of only granting a DNAA.

Muhyiddin’s lawyer Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik argued that it was clear and obvious that the prosecution was “no longer interested” in proceeding with the four charges, and also said the prosecution did not give strong reasons for why the court should give a DNAA instead of an acquittal.

“The law is very clear. Strong reasons must be given, otherwise the court has no choice but to grant a discharge amounting to an acquittal,” he argued.

“This morning, very clear, the prosecution has not provided any reasons as to why the accused cannot be acquitted and discharged.

“Unless we have good grounds given by the prosecution, exceptional grounds, cogent grounds as to why they cannot proceed, the accused must be entitled to an order of discharge amounting to acquittal (DAA). The accused person needs to move on, he’s got his public life and private life to manage.

“And under the circumstances and in the name of justice and fairness, it’s not fair for the sword of the prosecution to hang over his head for an indefinite time,” Hisyam said, urging the court to acquit Muhyiddin on the four charges “in the name of fairness and justice”.

Muhyiddin’s lawyer Chetan Jethwani also argued that there is “real world prejudice” if Muhyiddin is not acquitted of the four charges, claiming that the prosecution had been relying on the four charges in order to freeze and seize Muhyiddin’s party Bersatu’s accounts for the last three years.

Chetan said a court challenge against the authorities’ freezing and seizure of Bersatu’s funds is currently still pending at the Court of Appeal.

In response, Akram said the prosecution was not saying that the four charges against Muhyiddin were “wrong”, but said it is merely using its discretionary powers under Section 254(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to not continue with these charges.

While reiterating that the prosecution’s DNAA application for the four charges was after it had evaluated the entire case, Akram did not provide any other reasons for why the prosecution did not want to proceed with trial for those four charges for now.

“There’s no stopping our power under Section 254(1) to apply, and nothing stops Your Ladyship’s power under Section 254(3) to grant full acquittal. We leave it to Your Ladyship’s discretion and wisdom to make the appropriate order,” he had said.

Akram also said the issue of freezing of Bersatu’s accounts is a separate matter filed in another court and is not relevant to the prosecution’s powers under Section 254(1) to discontinue the four charges.

Section 254(1) enables the prosecution to decide not to further prosecute an accused person at any stage of the trial (before judgment is delivered) and states that the accused will be discharged after the prosecution informs the court that it will not continue with the charges.

Section 254(3) states that an accused person’s discharge under Section 254(1) will not be an acquittal unless the court orders it. 

In other words, Section 254(3) gives the court the power to decide to acquit an accused person, if the prosecution decides not to continue with the charges against the accused person.

After deliberating the arguments from both sides during lunch break, the judge decided to acquit Muhyiddin of the four charges.

Previously on August 19, the trial’s lead prosecutor Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin had in court confirmed that Akram would be conducting the prosecution for the Bukhary Equity charges, and had confirmed business tycoon Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary was one of the witnesses to be called.

The prosecution had initially had a list of 18 prosecution witnesses for the charges involving Bukhary Equity funds.