A Srimurugan said there was no provision under the Criminal Procedure Code or a past legal pronouncement by a court to compel the prosecution to update the court whether it wanted to continue with the case or otherwise.
“The public prosecutor, who is also the attorney-general, has discretion under the Federal Constitution and the CPC to continue or drop a case,” he told FMT.
He was commenting on the case of deputy prime minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who was granted a DNAA a year ago on all 47 of his corruption, criminal breach of trust and money laundering charges after four years of trial in the High Court here.
Deputy public prosecutor Dusuki Mokhtar had told trial judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah then that he had instructions from the AG to discontinue the proceeding.
He urged the judge to classify the case as a DNAA as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission was still investigating the matter and that the prosecution would need to review the outcome of the probe.
Zahid, who had sent representations to the AG, had claimed that there had been selective prosecution by the previous regime.
The Umno president was charged with CBT when Dr Mahathir Mohamad became the prime minister for a second time after Pakatan Harapan won federal power in 2018.
Lawyer K Ramu said the least the AG as the guardian of public interest could do was to inform the public on the status of MACC’s investigation.
“In the name of transparency and accountability, he should at least issue a public statement on the latest update on the matter,” he said.
Lawyer Salim Bashir said a better option would be for Zahid to file an application to obtain an acquittal.
“It will not be right to leave an individual saddled with a charge in which proceedings are stayed for an indeterminate period,” the former Malaysian Bar president said.
He noted that in the case of Karpal Singh v Public Prosecutor, the court had stated that the “sword of Damocles” could not be left hanging over one’s head and that there must be finality to a case.
Salim said the prosecution could oppose or concede to such an application.
“Zahid cannot be charged again with the same offence in the future if the court declares that he is acquitted,” he said.
However, he could be asked to resume his defence or face new charges of similar facts and evidence some time later if the present DNAA status remained.
Zahid’s trial came to a halt after 77 days of hearing and a total of 114 prosecution and defence witnesses had been called to testify.
The AG as public prosecutor has the power to institute and withdraw charges under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution and Section 254(1) of the CPC at any time before judgment is passed.
Zahid stood trial on charges of money laundering and CBT involving millions from Yayasan Akalbudi, and accepting bribes for various projects during his tenure as the home minister.
Twelve of the charges were for CBT, eight for corruption and the remainder for money laundering.