Lawyers from various quarters are urging the Attorney-General’s Chambers to explain why it has concluded that there will be “no further action” (NFA) in the Yayasan Akalbudi money laundering case against Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.
This is in light of the High Court ruling that there was a prima facie case for the 47 charges against Zahid.
Among those who want answers are Bukit Gelugor MP Ramkarpal Singh, Lawyers for Liberty co-founder Latheefa Koya, as well as lawyers Rajesh Nagarajan, and Rafique Rashid Ali.
Ramkarpal said the AGC’s statement announcing NFA for Zahid (above) lacked substance.
“The AGC’s statement lacks substance and amounts to a mere general statement that it is now satisfied that the matter ought not to be proceeded with.
“Given the above, the AGC must explain why it is now of the view that the prima facie findings of the High Court against Zahid do not carry weight, especially when those findings were based on its own evidence led in court.
“With respect, a failure by the AGC to provide a satisfactory explanation will likely further erode confidence in it, which is ill-advised,” Ramkarpal said in a statement last night.
Prima facie is a Latin term that, in court, means there is sufficient evidence to support a case.
Prima facie to DNAA to NFA
In January 2022, judge Colin Lawrence Sequerah ordered Zahid to enter his defence in the Yayasan Akalbudi case after finding that a prima facie case had been established.
Sequerah is the same judge who convicted Najib of the 1MDB corruption case in late December.
Despite succeeding in establishing their case against Zahid, the prosecution, however, applied for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) in April 2023, ostensibly because further investigations were required.
Then, yesterday evening, the AGC announced that the further investigations ultimately led it to decide not to pursue the case further.
“After reviewing the entirety of the materials and new evidence obtained from the further investigations and assessment, this department, based on prosecutorial evaluation and consideration, found that the available evidence was insufficient to support the continuation of prosecution for all the charges,” it had said.
‘Special treatment’
Latheefa, in a post on X today, said the AGC’s decision “stank to high heaven”.
“The AGC made a weak, pathetic attempt to explain the NFA. But they gave no explanation why they are dropping a case in which the High Court judge Sequerah had already decided that a prima facie case was made out.
“Would Zahid have received such special treatment if he were not the deputy prime minister? Would Zahid have received such special treatment if he were not a crucial political ally of (Prime Minister) Anwar Ibrahim?
“The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Something is rotten in Putrajaya.”
Rafique raised similar questions about the correlation between Zahid’s position and the NFA yesterday.
He also asked why the matter was not left to the courts to decide.
Rajesh likewise was cited by FMT as saying there is now a perception of reluctance to complete cases against powerful political figures.
“Ordinary Malaysians are left asking a simple question: why pursue the case this far if there was never an intention to see it through?” he was quoted as saying. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.