KUALA LUMPUR – The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had refuted the Bar Council’s allegations that it has tarnished its reputation and credibility over Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s conditional discharge from his corruption trial.
In a statement, the AGC said it never used the term “withdraw” over the discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) granted to Zahid recently.
“This department stresses that any discretion exercised by the attorney-general is never done arbitrarily or with any external interference. The attorney-general takes into account the principles of justice for all parties and the proper administration of justice,” it said.
“Furthermore, it is important to clarify that this department has never employed the term ‘withdraw’ in any case involving the Deputy Prime Minister YAB Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid bin Hamidi, as incorrectly stated in the Bar Council statement.”
Earlier, Bar Council president Karean Cheah expressed concern about the recent withdrawal of 47 charges against Zahid.
This decision was made by deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Datuk Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar following instructions from then-attorney-general Tan Sri Idrus Harun, based on Article 145(3) of the federal constitution and section 254(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The DPP cited representations from the defence in December 2022 as the reason for this decision, indicating a need for further investigation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
She noted that on August 8, the former lead DPP, Datuk Raja Rozela Raja Toran, requested early retirement from April 3, making her unable to lead the prosecution for Zahid trial.
Among others, she said these timelines, events, and key individuals have fueled public concerns and outcry over this matter.
However, the department also asserted that both the attorney-general and the department possess the foremost authority to decide whether to continue with a charge, drawing upon a multitude of factors, including reports from the investigation department and the representations put forth.
It also cited Article 145(3) of the federal constitution, which explicitly grants the attorney-general full discretion, including the power to halt any legal proceedings for an offence.
In this specific case, the attorney-general’s exercise of discretion under Article 145(3) of the federal constitution was grounded in a well-founded rationale, it said.
“The defence called 15 witnesses, including the accused himself, and we (the prosecution) believe that the testimony of these witnesses warrants scrutiny by both the prosecution and the investigating party,” it said
“Zahid submitted two Letters of Representation to the AGC, respectively dated 8 December 2022 and January 25 2023.”
“Continuation of the representation submitted by Zahid of the MACC on 20 January 2023 informed the AGC that it is important for a more detailed, in-depth and comprehensive investigation to be made.”
The department said Zahid had again on February 28, 2023 and March 7, 2023 submitted four more letters of representation which raised new issues and evidence that would necessarily require the MACC to investigate the matter.
“Zahid’s letter of representation also touches on the issue regarding the investigation of the accused before, during and after being accused in court which is said to have been done in haste, prematurely and incompletely,” it said. – September 8, 2023