PETALING JAYA: The statement by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) on its decision to apply for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) in Ahmad Zahid Hamidi”s Yayasan Akalbudi case raises more questions than answers, says a Muda leader.
Central executive committee member Nurainie Haziqah Shafi’i said the AGC’s defence of Zahid’s DNAA lacked transparency at a time when many are questioning its decision.
She also said it was misleading for the AGC to say “the court accepted” the prosecution’s request, as the power to prosecute lies solely with the AGC, not the court.
“The court made the order based on the prosecution’s request.
“Secondly, if the reasons (for Zahid’s DNAA) are solid or cogent, is the AGC saying that the case brought by former lead prosecutor Raja Rozela Raja Toran was weak, unconvincing and defective?
“Did Raja Rozela and the AGC fail to carry out their duties prior to this, especially when a prima facie case had already been proven?” Nurainie said in a statement.
On Monday, Zahid was granted a DNAA on all 47 charges of corruption, criminal breach of trust (CBT) and money laundering in his Yayasan Akalbudi case, after four years of trial in the High Court.
He had previously been ordered to enter his defence on all 47 charges, which comprised eight for corruption, 12 for CBT and 27 for money laundering.
The deputy prime minister had been accused of embezzling millions of ringgit from his foundation, Yayasan Akalbudi, and accepting bribes for various projects during his tenure as the home minister between 2013 and 2018.
The DNAA decision led to several quarters, including DAP secretary-general Loke Siew Fook and Amanah secretary-general Hatta Ramli, urging the AGC to explain why it sought a discharge for Zahid.
The AGC did not respond to these calls directly but issued a statement in response to former prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin saying the AGC’s move was “lacking morality”.
It said the application for the DNAA was based on “grounds which were presented and accepted by the court”, and that “the judge said that the grounds presented by the prosecution were cogent”.