Govt has failed to satisfactorily convince people on Zahid’s DNAA

 

From Hanipa Maidin

We all know that the Kuala Lumpur High Court granted deputy prime minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) for all 47 charges in his Yayasan Akalbudi case.

Like it or not, many people, including government supporters, are not really happy with the verdict.

Worse still, some even speculated that such a verdict was to be expected when the present unity government had only been made possible with the strong support from Umno, which is led by Zahid.

When the ex-senior deputy public prosecutor Raja Rozela Raja Toran – the previous lead prosecutor in Zahid’s trial – opted for an early retirement, many people in the legal fraternity smelled a rat.

It was then rumoured in legal circles that her early retirement probably had something to do with the case.

Some ministers in the government have been trying their best to convince the public that the court’s verdict was purely a judicial decision. Hence, the government had nothing to do with such a mind-boggling decision.

To a certain extent, it is true that it was the court’s decision to grant Zahid a DNAA. After all, only the court is legally empowered to deliver such a verdict. Nevertheless, the government’s narrative, with the greatest respect, only represents a half-truth.

Why? To know the truth, we have to understand the entire picture. In doing so, we need to know the decision-making process of such a DNAA.

The court did not get the ball rolling for the DNAA. On the other hand, it all began when Zahid’s lawyers wrote a letter of representation to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) asking it to review the indictments.

To be fair to Zahid, what his defence counsel did was nothing illegal. Those who are familiar with criminal litigation are fully aware of representations in a criminal trial.

Was the AGC bound to accept such representations by Zahid’s lawyers? The answer is a resounding no.

Any first-year law student would say it is absolutely weird for the prosecution to even consider, let alone accept, Zahid’s representations when it had already managed to prove a prima facie case against him. The court duly concurred with the prosecution and held that Zahid needed to enter his defence and answer the criminal charges slapped against him.

Many may not be fully aware that the standard of proof in establishing a prima facie case is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court is obligated to carry out a maximum valuation of all the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

It is indeed a very high threshold that the prosecution needs to pass, so much so that if any accused opts to remain silent when a prima facie case has been established against them, the court will have no choice but to convict the person.

Be that as it may, when the AGC received the representations from Zahid’s lawyers, any lawyer would have expected the AGC to simply say, “Sorry guys, your representations are hereby rejected. We shall leave it for the court to decide your client’s fate after the defence closes its case.”

But it never happened that way. The representations were surprisingly accepted and the prosecution then informed the court that it had agreed to accept it.

The prosecution, in turn, asked the court to enter nolle prosequi (where the public prosecutor does not propose to further prosecute an accused) and grant Zahid a DNAA. Zahid’s lawyers, however, prayed for a full acquittal, which was refused by the judge.

Hence, in Zahid’s case, the court merely reaffirmed the “decision” made by the AGC. Ergo, it would be incorrect to say that it was purely the court’s decision.

No, it is not entirely the court’s decision. The AGC had a role in such a verdict. Period. - FMT

Hanipa Maidin is a former deputy law minister and is a practising lawyer.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.