PETALING JAYA: The public prosecutor will only frame charges against a suspect, especially in cases that involve high-profile personalities, if he has cogent evidence to prove his case in court, a senior lawyer said.
“From my years of experience dealing with the prosecution, charges will be framed if they have a watertight case,” said the lawyer who spoke on condition of anonymity.
He said this is because prosecuting a person itself could ruin one’s life and public standing.
The lawyer said this in response to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) recent statement that it had begun probes into several politicians who were named in court as having received money from a visa services company.
Three witnesses from visa service firm Ultra Kirana Sdn Bhd (UKSB) had testified at Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s corruption trial that payments had been made between 2014 and 2018 to several former and current Cabinet members and a former state chief minister.
Several code names which one witness said referred to former prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin, former foreign minister Anifah Aman, housing and local government minister Reezal Merican Naina Merican, foreign minister Hishammuddin Hussein, health minister Khairy Jamaluddin, and former Sabah chief minister Shafie Apdal, were found in a ledger.
Muhyiddin was alleged to have received RM1.3 million between June and August 2018.
A former company director testified that between RM50,000 and RM200,000 was paid to the Rembau Umno division headed by Khairy but the donations were not given directly or personally to him.
The lawyer said making an allegation is one thing but proving a case in court is another matter altogether.
“The prosecution first wants to establish a prima facie case to show the public that the charge or charges are not frivolous and an abuse of power,” he said.
He added that the court would most likely order an acquittal if the accused was able to raise any doubt in the prosecution’s case.
“That does not mean the accused did not commit the crime. It just means that the prosecution had failed to prove their case after considering the defence or their evidence,” he said.
Meanwhile, former Malaysian Bar president Salim Bashir said the public prosecutor, who is the attorney-general, has the discretion whether to charge a suspect.
“The Federal Constitution gives him that power,” he said that no third party could make a legal challenge against the AG for his refusal to prosecute.
He added, however, that based on a Federal Court judgment delivered last year in the case of N Sundra Rajoo, the discretion given to the AG could be fettered and be challenged.
A seven-member bench restored a High Court ruling that quashed Sundra Rajoo’s criminal breach of trust (CBT) charges on the grounds that he enjoyed immunity as director of the Asian International Arbitration Centre.
Salim, whose forte is criminal law practice, said there is nothing to stop the public prosecutor from deciding to frame fresh charges if investigators are able to collect new evidence.
“Unlike civil cases, there is no time limit to prosecute as long as there is strong evidence to be presented in court and there are witnesses available to testify in court,” he added. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.