…,…….given the increase in number of cases where charges were withdrawn midway or before the trial starts.
In Sept 2023, the Attorney General (AG) told the court that the prosecution’s application for the DNAA on Zahid is based on 11 reasons, including to enable more comprehensive and complete investigations to be carried out on Zahid’s case.
- MACC told the AGC that it is important for “further investigations that are more detailed and comprehensive” to be carried out following the 4 representation letters from Zahid which raised issues and evidence that requires MACC to investigate
- Zahid’s representation letters had touched on the issue of investigations — before and after Zahid was charged in court — that were alleged to have made in a “haste, careless, premature and incomplete (terburu-buru, cuai, pramatang dan tidak lengkap)”,
- this matter would certainly cause the reputations of the AGC as the prosecution and the MACC as investigators to be harmed as it would be perceived as if these two bodies are legal institutions that had been used (“diperalatkan”) by certain quarters
- temporarily discontinue the trial with a DNAA as being to not deny Zahid’s rights as the accused and to prevent “miscarriage of justice”, saying: “We believe the charges on the accused has to be stopped for now but only given the effect of DNAA on the accused until a more comprehensive and complete investigations are completed.”
- The accused also raised a very serious issue in his representation letters, namely the allegation that he is a victim of selective prosecution from the previous government regime and he is of the view that it is very important for the prosecution and the MACC to look into and also investigate this claim.
- there was an internal memo alleged to be issued by the AGC relating to Zahid’s case which had went viral in the social media, and said the AGC is now taking steps to verify the content of the alleged internal memo.
In Sept 2026, the AG applied for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) in which PM8 was accused of using his position as premier to obtain RM200 million in gratification.
In a statement, the AG said continuing prosecution carried clear litigation risks that includes the risk of compromising strategy and evidence on the other charges still faced by PM8.
The AG added that a prosecutor's duty is not just to defend any case no matter the circumstance, but to ensure that only charges with a sufficient evidentiary basis and that can be sustained in court are proceeded with.
Based on the reasonings given by the Attorney General for the above 2 cases, shouldn’t the AG / public prosecutor file charges only when they have an open-and-shut case?
Surely, the AG / Public Prosecutors would have asked, "Is there enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against the suspect?"
The AG is obviously aware that when he decides to drops charges midway through a case, it is often viewed by the public as a failure or a sign of institutional weakness.
Maybe it is time for the government to propose and reform both institutional workflows and legal guidelines and strengthen the standard of review before a case ever enters a courtroom in future?
FLK (leekhean.foo@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
