In a new bid to bring judicial review proceedings, the Bar is seeking to quash the AG’s decision to take no further action (NFA) in the case despite the trial reaching an advanced stage.
The Bar also wants a declaration that the NFA decision, announced in a media statement on Jan 8, is null and void and made in excess of the jurisdiction vested in the AG by Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution and Section 254(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
The statutory body, which represents almost 25,000 practising lawyers in Peninsular Malaysia, wants the High Court to issue a mandamus order directing the AG to act in accordance with Section 254A of the CPC and resume the corruption case or bring fresh charges against Zahid.
It also wants the court to compel the AG to give the Bar discovery of all information, documentation, reasons, bases, and particulars relied on by the AG in coming to his decision.
The application, filed by legal firm Abhilaash Subramaniam & Co at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, names the AG and Zahid as the first and second respondents.
FMT understands that unsealed copies of the application have been served on the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).
In the documents, the Bar said the NFA decision ran contrary to a ruling made by the trial court on Jan 22, 2022 that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against Zahid.
The Bar also contended that the NFA decision was against public interest, as it would result in a substantial waste of judicial time, resources, and public funds already invested in the case.
Newly-elected Bar president B Anand Raj affirmed the affidavit in support of the application.
On Sept 4, 2023, the High Court granted Zahid a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) on 47 charges of corruption, money laundering, and criminal breach of trust.
The DNAA was granted pending further investigations by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
Justice Collin Lawrence Sequerah, who presided over the trial, allowed the application despite previously ruling that the prosecution had succeeded in proving a prima facie case against Zahid.
The case was at the defence stage when the DNAA was granted, with Zahid and 14 other defence witnesses having already testified.
Despite this, the AGC claimed in January this year that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the charges following MACC’s probe.
In an earlier application filed in December 2023, the Bar sought leave from the High Court to challenge the AG’s decision to apply for a DNAA in Zahid’s favour.
On June 27, 2024, Justice Amarjeet Singh dismissed the Bar’s application, ruling that the AG had no duty to furnish the Bar with documents obtained from MACC following its investigation.
The Bar’s appeal from that decision came up for hearing in the Court of Appeal earlier this week, with proceedings set to resume on April 15.