Muhyiddin’s acquittal raises questions about court’s jurisdiction

 

The court’s decision to strike out the four abuse of power charges and fully acquit Muhyiddin Yassin this morning has led to questions about whether the court is empowered to grant acquittals before witnesses are called.

Earlier today, the Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled that the four abuse of power charges against Muhyiddin, which are linked to the Jana Wibawa programme, were defective and not in line with the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

Judge Muhammad Jamil Hussin said the charges did not reveal sufficient particulars on the alleged offence under the MACC Act 2009.

Several legal practitioners have called the court’s decision strange, including litigation lawyer Tiara Katrina Fuad.

Tiara contended that while the court is empowered to strike out the charge if it is defective and that the defect is called out before witnesses are called, she is not sure the court has the power to acquit the accused in such cases.

She opined that the power to discharge and acquit before the calling of witnesses is limited statutorily to cases involving Section 254 of the CPC.

“That’s the thing: the court struck out the charges and ordered that Muhyiddin be acquitted and discharged...

“That is what I am saying is the anomaly,” Tiara told Malaysiakini.She also said on a social media posting that there is no precedent as yet to state that courts can grant either “discharge not amounting to an acquittal” (DNAA) or “discharge amounting to an acquittal” (DAA).

“To strike out a charge means that the charge was not legal. So arguably, a DNAA or even a DAA cannot be entered on an illegal charge. It’s just struck off. No further order has thus far ever been needed,” she said.

An inherent jurisdiction

In DNAA cases, the accused can still be charged with the same offence later, whereas this is not possible for DAA.

Section 254 of the CPC states that the public prosecutor may decline to prosecute further at any stage.

However, criminal lawyer Harshaan Zamani has a different opinion.

He believes the power to strike out and acquit an accused is part of the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

“It is an inherent jurisdiction, it is not expressed (in law).

“My view in exercising inherent jurisdiction is that the court is not prevented from acquitting (an accused). Nothing precludes the court from acquitting someone,” Harshaan said.

He said Section 254 of the CPC does not come into the picture in this case because it was not the public prosecutors who asked to withdraw the charges.

“It was Muhyiddin’s team (of lawyers) who were asking the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

“In that application, the court can give a full acquittal,” he said.

Several other lawyers Malaysiakini reached out to declined to comment on this case as the full written judgment has not been released, and as such, they do not have the full details of the grounds for the judge’s decision.

Muhyiddin is still facing three money laundering charges linked to the Jana Wibawa programme.

Meanwhile, Attorney-General Idrus Harun said the prosecution has gone to the Court of Appeal to reverse the acquittal of Muhyiddin over the four abuse of power charges.

• Muhyiddin's acquittal will set bad precedent - Umno man

• Review all 'selective prosecutions' against PN leaders, Hamzah tells AG