Kuala lumpur: The Attorney-General (AG) is pursuing an appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision, which permitted the Malaysian Bar to contest the prosecution's decision to cease proceedings against Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi in the Yayasan Akalbudi corruption case.
According to BERNAMA News Agency, the notice of motion was filed by AG Tan Sri Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar who presented two legal questions. The first is whether the AG's decisions to either initiate or discontinue prosecutions under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution are subject to judicial review. If so, what threshold or test should apply for commencing such proceedings? The second question regards whether the two-stage test from the Federal Court case of Sundra Rajoo Nadarajah v Menteri Luar Negeri, Malaysia and Ors [2021] is a binding legal principle.
Mohd Dusuki has also requested that all High Court proceedings be paused until the appeal is decided. Ahmad Zahid, the second proposed respondent in the judicial review proceedings, has separately applied for leave to appeal, raising five legal questions under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
On May 7, the Court of Appeal accepted the Malaysian Bar's application to challenge the AG's decision to stop proceedings against Zahid on September 4, 2023. The court found the application raised significant legal questions deserving of a full hearing, overturning the Kuala Lumpur High Court's June 27, 2024, decision which had denied the Bar's application for judicial review, citing insufficient grounds.
The Malaysian Bar is also seeking the court's declaration that the decision by then-High Court Judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah to grant Zahid a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) on 47 charges is invalid. The High Court had issued the DNAA after the prosecution revealed the Attorney-General's Chambers intended to halt proceedings to review new evidence.
Meanwhile, Mohd Dusuki stated that the appeal raises significant legal questions about the prosecutor's discretionary power under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution, emphasizing the need for clarity from the Federal Court, as the Court of Appeal's decision impacts all cases involving prosecutorial discretion under this article. He added that the decision has caused uncertainty regarding the 'two-step threshold' established in Sundra Rajoo.