The association is seeking an order annulling the attorney general’s decision and a declaration that it is null and void, asserting that it exceeded the jurisdiction and authority granted to the attorney general.

KUALA LUMPUR (Dec 26): Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi is set to oppose the Malaysian Bar's application seeking court permission to initiate a judicial review of the attorney general's decision to halt proceedings against him on Sept 4.

Zahid's lawyer, Guok Ngek Seong, said they would file an affidavit and argument to contest the application before Jan 11, 2024.

"The hearing for the Malaysian Bar's application to obtain permission from the court to initiate the judicial review is set for Jan 11, 2024, before Judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh.

"Whether the attorney general will also object to the judicial review application will be known during the hearing proceedings of the application," he said when contacted on Tuesday.

On Sept 4, the High Court here granted Zahid a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) for 47 charges related to criminal breach of trust, corruption, and money laundering involving Yayasan Akalbudi funds, after the prosecution informed that the Attorney General's Chambers sought to halt proceedings against Zahid to scrutinise new evidence.

The Malaysian Bar Association, in an application filed on Dec 2, named the attorney general and Ahmad Zahid as respondents.

The association is seeking an order annulling the attorney general's decision and a declaration that it is null and void, asserting that it exceeded the jurisdiction and authority granted to the attorney general.

The Malaysian Bar is also requesting a mandamus order instructing the attorney general to act in accordance with the law, including prosecuting Zahid again if deemed appropriate, as per Section 254A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

It also seeks an order compelling the attorney general to provide information and documentation justifying the decision to apply for a DNAA against Zahid.

The Malaysian Bar contends that the attorney general acted beyond jurisdiction and that the decision was unreasonable and irrational.