Zahid’s DNAA precursor to Najib’s release? KLSCAH reiterates calls for govt explanation

The group says the unity government needs to assure the people that the DNAA ruling does not equate to testing the waters for Najib’s release

9:52 AM MYT

 

KUALA LUMPUR – Another civil society has urged the government to provide an explanation over the discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) granted to Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi for his 47 charges relating to Yayasan Akalbudi funds. 

The Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH) said the government, led by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, must address concerns over how the verdict could be the precursor leading to former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s release from prison. 

“KLSCAH believes that the unity government needs to assure the people that (Zahid’s DNAA) does not equate to testing the waters for Najib’s release,” the group said in a statement yesterday. 

“After all, (Anwar) promised a strict crackdown on corruption, but the verdict in Zahid’s case has undermined the confidence of the people and civil societies in the government’s efforts to combat corruption. 

“It resembles the past government’s selective prosecution or withdrawal of charges against some political figures, ultimately appearing as a self-defeating move by the unity government.” 

Last year, Najib became the first former Malaysian prime minister to serve jail time and is currently carrying out his 12-year sentence in Kajang Prison for criminal breach of trust, money laundering and abuse of power relating to SRC International Sdn Bhd. 

The group added that Zahid’s DNAA is “unacceptable and unconvincing”, especially since government units, including investigation and anti-corruption agencies, have invested a significant amount of public funds and government resources into the case. 

It also reiterated calls for the separation of the public prosecution function and the attorney-general to remove any suspicion of political interference in cases involving politicians. 

“The attorney-general’s position is a political appointment and should not concurrently hold both roles as legal advisor to the government and prosecutor with the power to charge and withdraw charges. 

“Ensuring that even with changes in leadership, judicial institutions will not favour any party in power and that the phenomenon of selectively charging or dropping charges against certain political figures does not persist is something the unity government urgently needs to consider.”

On Monday, Zahid, who is also Barisan Nasional chairman, was granted a DNAA by the high court here on 47 charges of corruption, money laundering and criminal breach of trust involving tens of millions of ringgit in funds belonging to his charity organisation, Yayasan Akalbudi. 

This decision has sparked strong criticism from political parties, legal figures, civil society and the public while Umno members said it was proof that Zahid was a victim of political persecution.

The ruling by judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah came after public prosecutor Datuk Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar put forward 11 reasons to stop the proceedings of the case.

Yesterday, the Attorney-General’s Chambers said that the application was made to the court for “cogent” reasons that were accepted by the high court. 

Zahid’s legal counsel Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik has since said he would be filing an appeal against the DNAA as his client is instead seeking for a full acquittal. – September 6, 2023

Topics

 

Popular

Influencer who recited Quran at Batu Caves accused of sexual misconduct in Netherlands

Abdellatif Ouisa has targeted recently converted, underage Muslim women, alleges Dutch publication

Petronas staff to be shown the door to make up losses from Petros deal?

Source claims national O&G firm is expected to see 30% revenue loss once agreed formula for natural gas distribution in Sarawak is implemented

‘Very hurtful’: Chief justice exposes legal failures driven by distorted Islamic views

Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat laments misinterpretations of faith that distort justice in high-profile rulings, cites Indira Gandhi and Nik Elin Zurina cases

Related