Muhyiddin's acquittal - rarest of rare cases?

 

In March this year, former prime minister cum Bersatu president Muhyiddin Yassin was slapped with six criminal charges before the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur.

Out of that six charges, two counts entailed allegations that he received RM195 million in funds that were proceeds from unlawful activities between Feb 25 to July 16, 2021, and Feb 8 to July 8 last year.

The charges were framed under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUAA).

The remaining four charges, on the other hand, involved allegations that he used his position as the PM and Bersatu president to ask RM200 million purportedly as a bribe from Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd at the Prime Minister’s Department Complex, Federal Government Administrative Centre, Putrajaya between Feb 8-25, 2021.

He pleaded not guilty to all the six aforementioned indictments. Via his lawyers, Muhyiddin filed a motion asking the court to dismiss all the six charges preferred against him on the ground, inter alia, that the charges were defective and in turn vitiated by mala fide or bad faith on the part of the prosecution.

And the learned high court judge concurred with his lawyers and hence granted Muhyiddin a full verdict of acquittal.

By granting such a startling verdict - at least in my view - it seems that Muhyiddin was actually freed as if after the court had duly heard all the evidence presented before it in a full-fledged trial. But, as we know, the trial had not even commenced yet.

Legally speaking, in my view, the judge has, nevertheless, full discretion to render such a verdict.

With due respect to the prosecution, I am unable to detect any legal error despite the fact such a verdict may seem to be extremely rare.

And more often than not, such a decision is only granted in exceptional cases. Perhaps the trial judge considered that Muhyiddin’s case fell into that category.

Allowance to amend defective charges

Generally speaking, and based on my little experience as a former practising criminal lawyer, in cases pertaining to defective charges, the court would be invariably inclined to allow the prosecution to amend any defective charges and, pending such an amendment, the court would only give an order of discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) to an accused person.

This is because amendments to criminal charges may be made at any stage of the trial. Even a judge has the power to amend the charges in certain circumstances.

Ergo, ordering any accused person to be fully freed and acquitted on the ground of defective charges is a rather drastic measure. As far as I know, the court seldom invokes such a drastic power.

After all, the trial in Muhyiddin’s case has not even started in the sense that no evidence had been adduced.

Having said that, there is, however, a unique element in that case. In rendering an acquittal verdict to Muhyiddin, it was reported that the court was convinced that all the six charges against the Bersatu president were unduly vitiated by elements of bad faith or mala fide.

Hence it was unfair, in the eyes of the judge, to let those vitiated charges be hung over Muhyiddin like a “sword of Damocles”.

Truth be told, I find this ground to be extremely fascinating in that I sincerely believe many lawyers might possibly agree with me that it would be almost next to impossible to impute mala fide on the part of the prosecution.

The presumption has always been in favour of the prosecution that criminal charges are generally pursued in good faith.

It is submitted that, as a general rule, the accusation that the criminal charges framed by prosecution are infected by elements of bad faith may only take place in the rarest of rare cases!

Anyway, congratulations to Muhyiddin. Let us see how the Court of Appeal would view this exceptional verdict. - Mkini

---

MOHAMED HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Parliament and Law).

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.