DEPUTY Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi was this week granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal. Legal and political commentators have voiced their concern over the turn of events, even if they were not completely unexpected. 

The implications of the discharge are yet to be felt politically, but it follows a string of similar cases since the first Dr Mahathir Mohamad administration that have affected the reputation of our judiciary.  

The crux of the problem lies in the over-arching powers of the attorney-general, who acts as both counsel for the government and the public prosecutor.

The conflict of interest is obvious. Many have called for the separation of these roles. 

Before this, we saw similar instances of “nolle prosequi” – the abandoning of the prosecution – being employed in Malaysian politics. During the Muhyiddin Yassin administration, it was used against Musa Aman. Dr Mahathir’s second administration saw its impact on the cases of Lim Guan Eng and Mohd Rafizi Ramli.

Zahid’s case piques our interest because the court has already established a prima facie, or a primary case. This means that the evidence for each element of the accused’s alleged crime has been substantiated. This evidence must either be challenged individually in court or, if left uncontested, will stand against the accused and be weighed to determine his guilt. Calling it a court decision might be a bit of a stretch.

When the prosecution asks for a discharge not amounting to acquittal, the court typically grants it as a sign of respect for the prosecution’s discretion to pursue or drop a case, often for the “greater good”. This could include avoiding wasting the court’s time when a case isn’t progressing well or when a deal has been struck with the accused to cooperate in a larger criminal investigation. Therefore, it’s more of an executive decision than a judicial one.

In this case, as in most of the other cases mentioned, the defence counsel made representations to the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) to to halt proceedings. Interestingly, the legal counsel representing Zahid also represented Muhyiddin, achieving success just a few months ago. Perhaps the incoming AG could shed light on the persuasive factors behind his predecessor’s decisions.

However, we must consider realpolitik in this matter. How will this decision impact the support base of the Pakatan Harapan-Barisan Nasional coalition? The government was formed with the promise of unity and stability, and this decision may be seen as beneficial for Umno-PH. The deputy prime minister’s position remains stable for once, without any apparent struggle to usurp the premiership.

But what’s advantageous for the might not necessarily be beneficial for the country or the electorate. Malay-Muslim support has been shifting from Barisan Nasional to Perikatan Nasional since last year’s general election, largely due to charges of corruption surrounding Umno leaders. Meanwhile, although the non-Malay-Muslim vote for PH-BN remains strong, there has been a decrease in voter turnout.

The concern is that instead of driving voters towards another political coalition, the case might push them towards apathy. An explanation should be provided to the people, especially to the voters who have carried the torch of reform for over two decades for the prime minister, even at personal risk, and who have rallied behind him in every matter. – September 7, 2023.

* Emmanuel Joseph firmly believes that Klang is the best place on Earth, and that motivated people can do far more good than any leader with motive.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.