KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 15 — The Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) confirmed today it will be appealing against the High Court's decision to discharge former prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin of four abuse of power charges earlier.

Deputy public prosecutor Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin said instructions received were for prosecutors to file an appeal this evening and seek a stay of proceedings for Muhyiddin's remaining three money laundering charges at the Sessions Court pending today's appeal.


“We will be appealing (this evening), but for the meantime we accept the High Court's decision,” he told reporters briefly.

Previously the Sessions Court had fixed September 19 to hear a joint trial application filed by prosecutors to consolidate four power abuse (now struck out) and three money laundering charges faced by Muhyiddin.

Earlier the High Court acquitted and discharged Muhyiddin of four abuse of power charges after ruling them defective and non-compliant of existing law for lacking the necessary particulars in order for the latter to mount an effective defence.


In a statement issued hours later, Attorney-General Tan Sri Idrus Harun affirmed an appeal has been filed subsequent to today's decision.

"The prosecution would also wish to clarify that the application decided upon by the High Court isin regards to the four charges under Section 23 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Act.

"Whereas three other charges under Section 4(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act remain," he said in a brief statement.

In the four charges, Muhyiddin as prime minister of Malaysia and Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia president was alleged to have used his position to obtain gratification amounting to RM232.5 million from three companies namely Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd, Nepturis Sdn Bhd and Mamfor Sdn Bhd as well as Datuk Azman Yusoff for the party.

Last April 18, Muhyiddin had filed a notice of motion to request that he be acquitted and discharged of all four charges brought against him, alleging the charges lacked particulars as to how he had abused his position or the Prime Minister’s Office for the purpose of gratification.