.png)
THE Court of Appeal was told today that the Attorney General's decision to apply for Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi to be discharged without acquittal (DNAA) from 47 cases of criminal breach of trust, corruption and money laundering is against public interest and should be quashed.
Former Bar Council President Datuk S Ambiga, in her submission, said there was an arguable case in the appeal to challenge the Attorney General's decision to discontinue proceedings in the case involving the Akalbudi Foundation funds.
Ambiga argued that it was important to be reminded of the key principle of law that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.
She said that the manner and justification used by the first respondent (Attorney General) to apply for the DNAA did not promote transparency, did not protect public interest, and did not maintain the integrity of public institutions.
The failure to provide any update on the status of the alleged investigation, the failure to provide complete reasons, as well as the argument about the need for a "high threshold" to prevent judicial review in the event of a case being dropped against a Deputy Prime Minister after a prima facie case has been proven, shows a lack of transparency and integrity.
"It undermines public confidence in the justice system. The action can also be seen as if the Attorney General's Office (AGC), as the prosecution and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), as the investigating body, are being manipulated or used by certain parties. It could tarnish the reputation and credibility of both institutions," she said.
Ambiga said this at the hearing of the Malaysian Bar's appeal against the High Court's decision to reject its application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the Attorney General's decision to apply for a DNAA order against Ahmad Zahid.
Through the application filed on December 2, 2023, the Bar, which named the Attorney General and Ahmad Zahid as respondents, sought an order for the Attorney General's decision on September 4, 2023, to be quashed.
The appeal was heard today before a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal led by Datuk Faizah Jamaludin, who sat with Datuk Dr Lim Hock Leng and Datuk Nadzarin Wok Nordin.
The court adjourned until April 15 to hear the Bar's submissions on the question of whether the Attorney General's exercise of power in civil cases is the same as his power in criminal cases.
Earlier, in the morning proceedings, the panel unanimously rejected the Attorney General's initial objection to the Bar's appeal.
Faizah, in the panel's decision, said that the Attorney General's position to apply for Ahmad Zahid to be released without acquittal (DNAA) and the subsequent decision of No Further Action (NFA) are two separate issues.
Faizah stressed that the fact that the appellant filed a judicial review against the NFA decision does not make the appeal against the High Court's decision to dismiss the application for leave to appeal the DNAA academic.
"There are still ongoing proceedings to challenge the Attorney General's decision to classify the case against the second respondent as NFA, and the application for acquittal by the second respondent is still pending in the High Court.
"Therefore, the Attorney General's decision to classify the case as NFA before the appeal is heard does not prevent the court from hearing the actual appeal against the High Court's decision to dismiss the DNAA judicial review application.”
The High Court had previously dismissed the Bar's application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings on 26 June 2024. – April 8, 2026