Become a member

Get the best offers and updates relating to Liberty Case News.

― Advertisement ―


Defense Minister to Investigate LTAT Resignations, Prepares to Brief Cabinet, Reveals PM

In response to the recent resignations within the Armed Forces Fund Board (LTAT Resignations), Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim disclosed that Defense Minister...
HomeMalaysia NewsProsecution Presents 13 Reasons for Contesting the Acquittal of Muhyiddin Yassin

Prosecution Presents 13 Reasons for Contesting the Acquittal of Muhyiddin Yassin

In a significant legal development, the prosecution has put forth a compelling case, outlining 13 reasons why the High Court’s decision to acquit and discharge former Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin on four counts of abuse of power has been called into question. This pertains to his administration’s Jana Wibawa program, a matter of public concern.

Read Story In Detail

In a petition of appeal, the prosecution asserts that Justice Jamil Hussin made serious errors both in law and fact when utilizing his inherent powers to dismiss charges that had been properly framed in accordance with the law. Furthermore, it was contended that the judge prematurely revoked these charges without allowing the prosecution the opportunity to present evidence through witnesses and documents.

The prosecution decried the judge’s use of inherent powers as an abuse of the legal process, emphasizing that the trial had yet to commence. They argued that Muhyiddin’s acquittal, as ordered by the judge, did not take into account the evidence the prosecution intended to present during the trial.

Additionally, the judge was criticized for not granting the prosecution the chance to amend the charges if they were found to be lacking in clarity regarding how Muhyiddin utilized his position as Prime Minister to commit the alleged offenses. The prosecution maintained that any deficiencies in the charges could have been rectified during the trial, with the court’s permission.

Furthermore, the prosecution contested the judge’s determination that the charges failed to sufficiently detail Muhyiddin’s alleged actions, emphasizing that such matters should be addressed at the conclusion of the trial, after the evaluation of all evidence.

Another point of contention arose from the judge’s interpretation of the term “associate” in section 3 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009. The prosecution argued that Muhyiddin’s affiliation with Bersatu should not have been discounted, as the party, despite its registration under the Societies Act 1966, still qualified as an organization within the ambit of the MACC Act. The prosecution highlighted that abuse of power charges could extend to benefiting oneself, relatives, or associates.

Moreover, the prosecution asserted that the judge failed to grasp the broader purpose of the MACC Act and subsequent amendments, which aimed to combat corruption across individuals, groups, business entities, and organizations.

The Court of Appeal has scheduled hearings for February 28 and 29 of the following year to address this legal challenge. Muhyiddin Yassin, who also serves as the Perikatan Nasional chairman, had faced allegations of abusing his authority to secure RM232.5 million for Bersatu between February 8 and August 20, 2021. However, on August 15, Justice Jamil dismissed the case, deeming the charges defective.