JOHOR BAHRU – Legal experts have raised concerns over the recent acquittal of Perikatan Nasional (PN) chairman Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin by the Kuala Lumpur High Court over defective charges – arguing that the decision may have deviated from established criminal law norms.
Their observations follow reports highlighting the prosecution’s petition of appeal, which lists 13 reasons for the Court of Appeal to overturn Muhyiddin’s acquittal.
Among their arguments, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) asserts that the high court made legal errors and prematurely concluded the trial, thus preventing the prosecution from presenting crucial evidence.
Former Bar Council president Salim Bashir provided insight into the prosecution’s stance by explaining that they contend the high court’s findings, both in terms of the law and facts, were flawed due to the premature acquittal.
“The prosecution claims that the trial judge made wrong findings on law and facts, because he acquitted the respondent (Muhiyiddin), before the prosecution was given the opportunity to prove their assertions on their charges based on documentary and oral evidence of the witnesses,” Salim said.
Meanwhile, lawyer Raj Surian added that the prosecution also argued that they should have been allowed to amend charges against Muhyiddin and reinstate the trial.
“The prosecution also stated that they should be given an opportunity to amend the charges if need be.
“Additionally, the prosecution is also praying for the charges (against Muhyiddin) to be reinstated,” Raj explained when contacted.
Lawyer A. Srimurugan weighed in on the legal procedures involved in such situations, highlighting that a court should only issue an order of acquittal after hearing all the evidence.
He further clarified that this typically occurs either when the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case or when the defence successfully casts doubt on the prosecution’s evidence.
Srimurugan stressed that the court cannot acquit without evaluating the evidence presented.
“What transpired in Muhyiddin’s case is not standard practice.
“Therefore, the prosecution’s argument that the order of acquittal was premature holds merit,” Srimurugan told Scoop.
In cases involving procedural irregularities or defective charges, Srimurugan suggested that the court should grant a dismissal not amounting to acquittal (DNAA).
“Acquittal is warranted after a thorough assessment of the evidence, while a DNAA is granted based on procedural compliance.”
On August 15, the Kuala Lumpur High Court acquitted Muhyiddin of four charges related to abuse of power, involving the receipt of gratification worth RM 232.5 million for Bersatu through the Jana Wibawa Project.
On the same day, the prosecution lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal against the acquittal.
The court has scheduled the appeal hearing for February 28 and 29 next year.
Muhyiddin still faces three charges related to money laundering, amounting to RM 200 million, also connected to the Jana Wibawa project. – October 1, 2023