Elaborate on decision to drop charges against Muhyiddin, AGC told

 Several reform groups and a think tank say the Attorney-General’s Chambers has not adequately explained the decision given the seriousness of the charges.

The groups said that the AGC should set out in ‘specific and substantive terms the evidential or legal basis for discontinuing the four Bukhary Equity charges’.

PETALING JAYA:

Reform groups and a think tank have urged the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to elaborate on its decision not to proceed with four charges against former prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin that were linked to Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd.

They took issue with the AGC’s previous explanation, saying it was not put to the court for evaluation and remained too general in view of the seriousness of the charges.

“More importantly, it does not explain why the prosecution has now reached a different conclusion than the one it defended as recently as October 2025, when it rejected Muhyiddin’s own representations to drop these very charges.

“The AGC should set out in specific and substantive terms the evidential or legal basis for discontinuing the four Bukhary Equity charges,” they said in a joint statement today.

The groups are Projek Sama, Rasuah Busters, C4 Center and Bersih, along with the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs.

On Tuesday, the AGC said proceeding with the four charges against Muhyiddin could have jeopardised its strategy and evidentiary case for other charges he still faces.

It said its decision was based on a professional assessment of the evidence, the prospects of proving the case and the overall interests of the prosecution.

The AGC also stressed that the duty of the public prosecutor is not to defend a charge at all costs but to ensure that only charges supported by sufficient evidence and capable of being defended are pursued in court.

Unhappy with this explanation, the groups demanded that the AGC release the guidelines governing charging and discontinuance decisions, including the criteria applied when the prosecution seeks a DNAA (discharge not amounting to an acquittal) or withdraws charges.

They argued that Malaysia’s prosecutors have operated for decades without a published framework against which individual decisions can be measured.

“This practice is no longer tenable, particularly where the subject of a discontinued prosecution is a former head of government,” they said.

High Court Justice Noor Ruwena Nurdin had acquitted Muhyiddin of three money laundering charges and one abuse of power charge after deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Akram Gharib applied for a DNAA.

The three money laundering charges involved Muhyiddin’s receipt of RM200 million from Bukhary Equity, while the abuse of power charge concerned his alleged solicitation of the said amount from the firm. - FMT