Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has taken his legal battle over the Yayasan Akalbudi corruption case to the Federal Court in an attempt to overturn a Court of Appeal ruling involving the Malaysian Bar.
Zahid is seeking to set aside the appellate court’s decision granting the Malaysian Bar leave to challenge the Attorney-General’s move to apply for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) in his corruption trial.
As the second putative respondent in the case, Zahid reportedly filed five legal questions at the Federal Court to satisfy requirements under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
Under Malaysian law, leave to appeal to the Federal Court is only granted if a case raises new constitutional or legal questions of significant public importance.
Lawyer Shahrul Fazli Kamarulzaman confirmed that the legal documents were filed at the Federal Court registry on Monday.
The Attorney-General, who is the first putative respondent, is also expected to file a separate leave application next week.
Both Zahid and the Attorney-General are seeking to restore the High Court’s June 27, 2024 ruling, which dismissed the Malaysian Bar’s application for leave to challenge the DNAA decision.
Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Bar had successfully crossed the legal threshold necessary for the case to proceed for a full hearing in the High Court.
Justice Faizah Jamaludin, who sat alongside Justices Lim Hock Leng and Nadzrin Wok Nordin, stated that the Bar’s case was arguable and not frivolous.
The appellate court also held that the DNAA granted by High Court judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah in 2023 was merely a procedural order made during ongoing criminal proceedings.
Back in January 2022, Sequerah ordered Zahid to enter his defence on all 47 charges involving corruption, criminal breach of trust and money laundering after finding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case.
However, in September 2023, Zahid was granted a DNAA on all charges pending further investigations by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
The Attorney-General’s Chambers later classified the case as requiring no further action in January this year.
The high-profile case continues to attract national attention due to its legal and political implications involving one of Malaysia’s most senior government leaders.
