PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has allowed the Malaysian Bar’s appeal in its legal challenge against the prosecution’s decision to apply a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) in Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s Yayasan Akalbudi graft case.
A three-judge panel chaired by Justice Faizah Jamaludin held that the Bar’s application was not frivolous and raised arguable issues that should be heard at the substantive stage.
ALSO READ: DNAA for Zahid over 47 corruption charges against public interest, court told
"This is an appropriate, rare and exceptional case that warrants a full judicial review," Justice Faizah said in a unanimous decision here on Wednesday (May 7).
The other judges on the panel were Justices Dr Lim Hock Leng and Nadzarin Wok Nordin.
The appellate court granted leave for the Bar’s application to commence judicial review and ordered the matter to be remitted to the High Court for a full hearing.
No order was made as to costs.
ALSO READ: Decision to seek DNAA for Ahmad Zahid in strict compliance with law, says AGC
On Dec 2, 2023, the Bar filed the application for leave to seek judicial review, naming the Attorney General and the Deputy Prime Minister as respondents.
It claimed the Attorney General acted ultra vires when he applied for a DNAA for Ahmad Zahid in the case.
The Bar sought a declaration that the decision was null and void, and made beyond the jurisdiction and authority conferred on the Attorney General under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution and Section 254(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
It also sought a mandamus order to compel the Attorney General to act in accordance with Section 254A of the Criminal Procedure Code by prosecuting Ahmad Zahid again.
On June 27, 2024, the High Court dismissed the Bar’s leave application and rejected its bid to refer three constitutional questions to the Federal Court.
The Bar then filed the appeal.
Ahmad Zahid was granted a DNAA on all 47 charges on Sept 4, 2023, after the prosecution told the court the Attorney General’s Chambers wanted to halt proceedings to scrutinise new evidence.
More to come
