Photo by Zahid Izzani/The Edge

KUALA LUMPUR (June 27): The High Court here has rejected a judicial review application, brought by the Malaysian Bar, to challenge Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi's discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) in the Yayasan Akalbudi corruption case.

Judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh, in his decision on Thursday, said that the Bar did not meet the requirements for a judicial review, and thus rejected the application.

The Bar, among others, sought an order to quash the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) decision to seek a DNAA for Zahid.

The Bar also sought an order instructing the AG 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 sought an order compelling the AG to provide information and documentation justifying the decision to apply for a DNAA for Zahid.

All of the above were dismissed by Amarjeet.

In his decision on Thursday, the judge said that the matter is not subject to a review, as it is not for the court to decide, meaning that the court will not hear the challenge to Zahid’s DNAA.

The rejection by Amarjeet was merely for the Bar to seek leave from the court to initiate a judicial review.

In this case, the Bar named the AG and the deputy prime minister as the respondents.

In his broad grounds which he read in court on Thursday, Amarjeet said that the exercise of the AG’s power under Section 145 (3) of the Federal Constitution is cloaked with the presumption of legality.

He further explained that the burden on the Bar as the applicant is high, and compelling grounds are required for a review.

In a decision that drew brickbats from many quarters, the prosecution in the deputy prime minister's criminal breach of trust, corruption, and money-laundering case had informed the court of their intention to discontinue and drop all 47 charges against Zahid, even though his defence had been called.

Presiding judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah handed down a DNAA to the Umno president, as opposed to the defence’s request for a full acquittal, meaning that Zahid can still be charged with the same charges in future.

Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan represented the AGC, while Steven Thiru appeared for the Bar, and Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik represented Zahid.

Separately, the Bar had also made an application to refer constitutional questions to the apex court, posing three questions on whether the landmark decision in the case of Asian International Arbitration Centre director Datuk N Sundra Rajoo included the AG's discretion to discontinue prosecution as well.

In the landmark case, the apex court ruled that Sundra had the privilege of immunity from criminal proceedings, and that the AG did not have absolute and unfettered discretion to institute a case.

However, Amarjeet said that these questions don’t meet the threshold as set out by the court under Section 84 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, and therefore, the questions would not be referred directly to the Federal Court.

Amarjeet then ordered the Bar to pay RM10,000 in costs to the AG.