Post by : Shakul
In the Malaysian Court of Appeal, it was clarified that the decision to grant a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) to Ahmad Zahid Hamidi was conducted within the legal framework. This statement emerged during a hearing held in Putrajaya on April 15, 2026.
Senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly insisted that the public prosecutor's actions were constitutionally sound when issuing the DNAA. He noted that this decision was in complete accordance with Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution and relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The counsel maintained that the decision did not breach any legal protocols or policies, asserting that prosecutorial discretion functions independently and is not subject to external interference. This reinforces the legitimacy of the Attorney-General’s actions in this scenario.
Furthermore, the prosecution indicated that new evidence had arisen that warranted a thorough investigation, leading to the suspension of the case. They emphasized the potential risk to the integrity of the legal proceedings if trial continued without reassessing this evidence.
Zahid's case includes serious allegations such as criminal breach of trust, corruption, and money laundering tied to Yayasan Akalbudi funds. It's noteworthy that a considerable portion of the trial had unfolded, with numerous witnesses having already given testimony prior to the DNAA being implemented.
In response, representatives for the Malaysian Bar criticized this decision, claiming that prosecutorial discretion should always prioritize public welfare, especially since the trial was already at a crucial stage, raising questions regarding the timing of the DNAA.
After listening to both parties' arguments, the three-judge panel indicated that additional time is required for deliberation. A decision will be released subsequently, as this case continues to draw significant attention from the public and legal circles in Malaysia.
English
