Muhyiddin is facing seven charges at the sessions court of using his position to obtain bribes and receiving money from unlawful activities.
In the High Court today, Muhyiddin’s lawyer Hisyam Teh Poh Teik told Justice K Muniandy that his client had on July 5 applied to withdraw the application, Bernama reported.
“Therefore, we request that the application to transfer this case be revoked,” Hisyam was quoted as saying during case management today.
Deputy public prosecutor Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin did not object to the withdrawal.
In requesting the withdrawal of the transfer application, Muhyiddin said he will instead pursue an application to have the charges struck out altogether.
“We (defence) have recommended to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) that the transfer application be postponed until a decision is made on our application to quash the charges, but the MACC wants the transfer application to be heard first.
“However, in order to save the court’s time and costs, since we think the transfer application will be academic if the cancellation is granted, we hereby withdraw (the transfer application),” he wrote in his withdrawal application, according to Bernama.
On March 10, Muhyiddin, 76, was charged with four counts of using his position to obtain RM233 million in bribes and two charges of receiving RM195 million from unlawful activities.
The Pagoh MP is accused of committing the offences at the prime minister’s office in Putrajaya and CIMB Bank Menara KL Branch, Jalan Stesen Sentral, here, between Feb 25 and July 16, 2021; March 1, 2020, and Aug 20, 2021, as well as Feb 8, 2022, and July 8, 2022.
On March 13, Muhyiddin was charged in the sessions court in Shah Alam with receiving RM5 million from unlawful activities at the Amcorp Mall branch of AmBank, Petaling Jaya, on Jan 7, 2022.
On April 18, Muhyiddin then filed an application to strike out the four charges of misuse of his position to receive RM233 million in bribes for Bersatu.
On April 27, he filed to transfer all the cases to the High Court on grounds that they involved complex constitutional issues.