Badan Peguam diizin cabar DNAA Zahid

MAHKAMAH Rayuan di Putrajaya semalam membenarkan rayuan Badan Peguam untuk memulakan semakan kehakiman mencabar keputusan Peguam Negara menghentikan perbicaraan kes Yayasan Akal Budi membabitkan Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

Panel tiga hakim Mahkamah Rayuan dipengerusikan Datuk Faizah Jamaludin membuat keputusan itu selepas mendapati permohonan Badan Peguam untuk mendapatkan kebenaran itu bukan sesuatu yang remeh dan tidak berasas.

Faizah yang membacakan keputusan panel, berkata permohonan kebenaran bagi semakan kehakiman yang difailkan badan itu turut menimbulkan isu-isu yang boleh dibicarakan.

“Cabaran Badan Peguam (terhadap) kedudukan Peguam Negara dalam menghentikan pendakwaan terhadap responden kedua (Ahmad Zahid) bukanlah sesuatu yang remeh dan ia membangkitkan isu-isu yang boleh dipertikaikan.

“Ini adalah suatu kes yang wajar, jarang berlaku dan luar biasa dan ia mewajarkan satu pendengaran semakan kehakiman penuh berdasarkan merit,” katanya.

Panel sehubungan itu mengetepikan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang tidak memberikan kebenaran kepada Badan Peguam dan memerintahkan kes dikembalikan ke Mahkamah Tinggi bagi pendengaran substantif semakan kehakiman.

Yang turut bersidang, hakim Datuk Dr Lim Hock Leng dan Datuk Nadzarin Wok Nordin .

Pada 4 September 2023, Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur melepas tanpa membebaskan (DNAA) Ahmad Zahid daripada 47 pertuduhan pecah amanah, rasuah dan pengubahan wang haram membabitkan dana Yayasan Akalbudi.

Hakim Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah yang kini Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, membuat keputusan berkenaan selepas pendakwaan memaklumkan bahawa Peguam Negara ingin memberhentikan prosiding terhadap Ahmad Zahid.

Faizah berkata, permohonan Badan Peguam itu melepasi syarat minimum bagi mendapatkan kebenaran untuk memulakan semakan kehakiman terhadap budi bicara Peguam Negara.

Beliau berkata, badan itu mencabar keabsahan dan rasional proses (Peguam Negara) membuat keputusan dan ia menepati serta sesuai untuk dianggap sebagai kes yang jarang dan luar biasa.

“Pertama, ia membabitkan keseriusan pertuduhan dan kepentingan awam dalam kes pendakwaan rasuah, begitu juga (terdapat) dapatan prima facie oleh Mahkamah Tinggi selepas membuat penilaian maksimum dalam kes berkenaan.

“Kedua ia sudah berada di peringkat membela diri, di mana tahap prosiding yang telah berlangsung termasuk 99 saksi pendakwaan telah dipanggil sepanjang 53 hari perbicaraan dan 15 saksi pembelaan, selain masa dan bilangan representasi yang telah dikemukakan.

“Kuasa Peguam Negara di bawah Perkara 145(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan adalah luas, namun bukan tidak boleh disemak oleh mahkamah dalam keadaan luar biasa.

“Status perlembagaan Peguam Negara tidak meletakkan beliau di luar penelitian kehakiman,” katanya.

Mahkamah Tinggi pada 24 Januari 2022 memutuskan pihak pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan kes prima facie bagi kesemua 47 pertuduhan sebelum Zahid diarahkan membela diri.

Sementara itu, Faizah berkata mahkamah juga menolak hujahan bahawa Badan Peguam secara tidak langsung mencabar perintah DNAA yang diputuskan mahkamah jenayah, sebaliknya menurut hakim itu, badan berkenaan mencabar keputusan awal Peguam Negara untuk menghentikan pendakwaan dan memohon DNAA.

“Oleh kerana perintah DNAA oleh mahkamah jenayah itu adalah kesan prosedural daripada keputusan Peguam Negara, perayu (Badan Peguam) tidak mencabar perintah mahkamah jenayah yang memberikan DNAA tersebut.

“Apa yang dicabar ialah punca tindakan kepada perintah itu, iaitu keputusan Peguam Negara untuk menghentikan pendakwaan berhubung pertuduhan terhadap Ahmad Zahid dan memohon DNAA.

“Oleh itu, kami mendapati permohonan semakan kehakiman oleh perayu bukanlah satu serangan sampingan terhadap perintah mahkamah jenayah yang memberikan DNAA bagi kesemua 47 pertuduhan terhadap Ahmad Zahid,” katanya.

Pada 27 Jun 2024, Mahkamah Tinggi menolak permohonan Badan Peguam untuk mendapatkan kebenaran bagi mencabar tindakan Peguam Negara memberhentikan prosiding terhadap Ahmad Zahid.

Hakim Datuk Amarjeet Singh (sekarang Hakim mahkamah rayuan) juga menolak permohonan Badan Peguam untuk merujuk tiga persoalan undang-undang ke Mahkamah Persekutuan berkaitan perkara yang sama.

Hakim itu memutuskan bahawa Badan Peguam tidak memenuhi keperluan syarat minimum di bawah Seksyen 96 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman (CJA).

Tambahan pula, katanya, perkara itu tidak boleh diterima menerusi semakan kehakiman di mana Peguam Negara tidak mempunyai kewajipan untuk memberikan dokumen (mengenai siasatan Ahmad Zahid) kepada Badan Peguam.

Dalam permohonan itu, Badan Peguam menamakan Peguam Negara dan Ahmad Zahid sebagai responden.

Ia memohon perintah certiorari supaya keputusan AG memohon DNAA terhadap Ahmad Zahid membabitkan 47 pertuduhan pecah amanah, rasuah dan pengubahan wang haram membabitkan dana Yayasan Akalbudi, pada 4 September 2023, dibatalkan.

Ia juga mahukan perisytiharan bahawa keputusan Collin Lawrence (yang kini hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan) adalah batal dan tidak sah serta dibuat melebihi bidang kuasa yang diberikan kepada Peguam Negara.

Ahmad Zahid diberikan DNAA bagi kesemua 47 pertuduhan, selepas pihak pendakwaan memaklumkan Jabatan Peguam Negara mahu menghentikan prosiding terhadapnya untuk meneliti bukti baharu.

Pada prosiding hari ini, peguam Datuk S Ambiga dan Steven Thiru mewakili Badan Peguam, Peguam Kanan Persekutuan Ahmad Hanir Hambaly bertindak bagi pihak Peguam Negara manakala peguam Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik mewakili Ahmad Zahid.

Court allows Bar to challenge Zahid’s DNAA

THE Malaysian Bar yesterday won its appeal to begin its court challenge against the Attorney General’s 2023 decision to apply for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) against Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s 47 charges in the Yayasan Akalbudi corruption trial.

Faizah Jamaludin, who chaired a three-judge panel at the Court of Appeal, said the panel unanimously decided that the Malaysian Bar’s court challenge could proceed to be heard by the High Court.

“Leave is granted to the Appellant to commence judicial review against the Attorney General’s impugned decision. The matter is remitted to the High Court for substantive hearing of the judicial review,” she said, referring to the Malaysian Bar as the appellant.

The other two judges on the panel were Datuk Lim Hock Leng and Nadzarin Wok Nordin.

The Malaysian Bar had on December 2, 2023 filed its court challenge via a judicial review application, but the High Court on June 27, 2024 decided not to grant leave for the case to be heard.

Since this is a judicial review case, the Malaysian Bar had to get the court’s leave or court’s permission first in order for the case to be heard.

The Malaysian Bar on July 23, 2024 appealed against the High Court’s decision, and this is the appeal it won today.

The High Court will now hear the Malaysian Bar’s challenge against the AG’s decision to get a DNAA in Zahid’s case, unless the AG decides to file an appeal on today’s decision.

When reading out excerpts of the court’s judgment today, Faizah noted that the Malaysian Bar’s appeal today involves an issue of constitutional and public importance, specifically on the threshold or the minimum requirement in order to get leave to challenge the AG’s discretion in prosecutions under the Federal Constitution’s Article 145(3).

Under Article 145(3), the AG has the power and discretion to “discontinue” any criminal proceedings or to drop prosecutions.

Faizah stressed that the Court of Appeal’s decision today is not on the merits of the criminal charges, “does not determine the guilt of or innocence of” anyone, and is also not on the AG’s motives and conduct.

Instead, she said the only question is whether the Malaysian Bar has met the threshold for leave to start its court challenge against the AG’s September 2023 decision to ask for a DNAA in Zahid’s case.

She made it clear that a DNAA is “not a finding of innocence or guilt”, but a “procedural order” that the courts make in criminal proceedings.

Faizah listed five legal issues that the Court of Appeal had examined in coming to its decision today, including whether the Malaysian Bar had fulfilled the test to be able to start its court challenge.

She said the Federal Court’s 2021 decision in the Sundra Rajoo case had clarified that the AG’s prosecutorial discretion under Article 145(3) is wide but is not “absolute or unfettered”, and that it had ruled that the AG’s prosecutorial discretion could be subjected to judicial review in “appropriate, rare and exceptional” situations.

She noted the Federal Court had made it clear that all public powers have legal limits and that the AG’s constitutional status does not mean that the courts could not review his prosecutorial discretion, although a higher standard of scrutiny would apply.

The Court of Appeal today decided that the test to get leave for a judicial review against the AG’s prosecutorial discretion is the same test that applies to other judicial review cases.

This test is whether there is an arguable case that is not frivolous.

But when the judicial review is about how the AG exercised his prosecutorial discretion, the Court of Appeal said the test for getting leave must also be applied with “discipline, caution and restraint” with considerations of four factors.

These four factors are the AG’s constitutional status; the presumption that the AG’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion was legal; the doctrine of separation of powers; and the principle that judicial review over prosecutorial discretion is limited to “appropriate, rare and exceptional” cases.

Faizah said the presumption of legality of the AG’s prosecutorial discretion cannot be an “absolute bar” or completely shut out leave for judicial review, if such a court challenge is supported by identifiable and serious matters.

Unlike the AG’s decision to charge an individual which can be challenged within the court process and trials, she noted that the decision to discontinue or drop a prosecution “may have a final practical effect” and remove it from the courts.

“In such a case, a judicial review may be the only practical means by which the legality or rationality of the AG’s decision-making process can be examined,” she said.

Derma Tabung Perjuangan