AGC raises no objection as Zahid seeks acquittal in Yayasan Akalbudi case; High Court defers decision

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 24 — The High Court opted to defer making a ruling on whether or not Deputy Prime Minister I Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi would be acquitted or permanently freed from all 47 charges, which involve alleged corruption, criminal breach of trust, and money laundering in the Yayasan Akalbudi case.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Badius Zaman Ahmad informed the court that the prosecution has “no objection” to Zahid’s application, but did not elaborate on the reasons.

Judge Nurulhuda Nur’aini Mohamad Nor said she would not decide on the acquittal today, citing public interest and the need to allow the Court of Appeal to address related legal points first as reasons for postponing her judgment.

“Court will not make any decision yet, even though the public prosecutor has indicated they are not objecting to Enclosure 1,” the judge said, referring to Zahid’s acquittal application.

Zahid was granted a “discharge not amounting to acquittal” (DNAA) in September 2023 over these 47 charges and last month applied to the High Court to be formally acquitted.

A DNAA temporarily frees an accused from charges, but the same charges can be brought again. An acquittal, however, prevents the prosecution from re-filing the same charges.

On January 28, Zahid filed an application under Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code for an acquittal in the Yayasan Akalbudi trial.

The judge explained that the Malaysian Bar’s upcoming appeal at the Court of Appeal, scheduled for April 8, challenges the High Court’s refusal to grant leave for a judicial review on Zahid’s DNAA. 

Making a decision now could render that appeal “academic,” she added.

She further noted that whether the Attorney General’s discretion under Article 145 of the Federal Constitution – which allows the AG to discontinue proceedings – is “unfettered” remains a live legal issue.

“For that reason, the court will not make any decision until after the appeal is heard. Any decision of the Court of Appeal will bind this court, and it is not for this court to usurp the appellate court’s power,” she said.

The judge also clarified that the High Court and Court of Appeal matters are interconnected. 

The judicial review application was based on the DNAA decision, which itself involves the AG or public prosecutor’s powers under Article 145.

The High Court has scheduled the hearing for Zahid’s acquittal application on April 24, with a possible decision on the same day if ready.

What Zahid’s lawyer said

Lawyer Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik is counsel for Zahid. — File picture by Shafwan Zaidon

During hearing earlier Zahid’s lead lawyer Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik argued that the High Court should grant an acquittal for all 47 charges.

He said the key factor for consideration is the prosecution’s decision not to pursue the case, noting that the charges have been hanging over Zahid for more than two and a half years.

“It is not fair or just to have these charges hanging over his head,” Teh said.

Teh asserted that the High Court can only decide whether to acquit Zahid and cannot make other decisions.

“The application is under Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code, based primarily on the public prosecutor’s position that they are no longer interested in the matter. There was a media statement on January 6 saying the matter is under NFA (No Further Action).

“Under such circumstances, the only decision the court can make is either to allow or not allow the acquittal,” he said.

“When the public prosecutor has informed the court and the public that they are no longer pursuing the prosecution, the only decision My Lady can make is a discharge amounting to acquittal,” he added, citing past court rulings.

Malaysian Bar objects to Zahid’s acquittal application

The Malaysian Bar sent a letter to the High Court yesterday objecting to Zahid’s application, citing the pending appeal at the Court of Appeal. The letter was received by Zahid’s lawyers yesterday and by the AGC this morning.

Teh argued that the Malaysian Bar has no legal standing in this case and failed to specify under what law the objection was made. 

He said allowing the Bar to object would “erode” the powers of the public prosecutor.

Lawyer Collin Andrew, representing the Bar, cited Section 42 of the Legal Profession Act, which states the Bar’s role includes upholding justice and assisting the public in legal matters.

While the Bar is not a party to the case, Andrew said its objection highlights the pending appeal, which could become moot if the acquittal is granted now.

He disagreed with Zahid’s lawyer that the court only has a limited range of powers, noting that the High Court has wide discretion and could even choose to “stay or reserve” its decision until the Court of Appeal delivers its ruling.

After hearing all arguments, the High Court confirmed it would not make any decision today.

The Malaysian Bar was also represented by lawyers Abhilaash Subramaniam and Chan Yen Hui.