PETALING JAYA: An appeal against the High Court's decision to discharge and acquit former prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin of four abuse of power charges has been filed by the government.
Attorney-General Tan Sri Idrus Harun said the Notice of Appeal against the entire decision was filed on Tuesday (Aug 15).
Idrus also explained that the High Court had only released and acquitted Muhyiddin of his power abuse charges but that the former prime minister’s three other money laundering charges remained.
"The prosecution referred to the decision of Justice Datuk Jamil Hussin, Judge of the Kuala Lumpur High Court which was delivered this morning (Aug 15) in the case of the Application by Tan Sri Mahiaddin Md Yasin to cancel four predicate charges under section 23 of the MACC Act 2009.
ALSO READ: Muhyiddin succeeds in bid to get power abuse charges quashed
"As everyone is aware, the Court has granted Tan Sri Mahiaddin Md Yasin's application and subsequently ordered the Applicant to be released and acquitted of the four predicate charges.
"The prosecution hereby wishes to state that the Notice of Appeal against the entire decision has already been filed today (Aug 15)," said Idrus in a statement on Tuesday (Aug 15).
Idrus also clarified that the application that has been decided by the Court just now concerned four charges for offenses under section 23 of the MACC Act only.
Three more charges under section 4(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorist Financing and Proceeds of Illegal Activities Act 2001 against Muhyiddin still remained, he said.
Idrus added that the mention date for the case in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court is on Sept 19.
Earlier on Tuesday, the High Court discharged and acquitted Muhyiddin of four charges involving abuse of power to obtain a RM232.5mil gratification for Bersatu.
Justice Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin made the order to discharge and acquit the Bersatu president after the court was satisfied that all four charges were defective, baseless and vague.
Muhammad Jamil said the charges did not show any details on the offence, causing the accused to be unable to give proper instructions to his team of lawyers.
