AGC’s decision “stinks to high heaven”.
Civil society groups and senior lawyers have called on the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) to explain its decision to take no further action (NFA) on 47 charges of criminal breach of trust, corruption and money laundering against Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, despite an earlier High Court finding that a prima facie case had been established.
The Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Centre) and the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) said the AGC must clarify how it reconciles its latest position with the prosecution’s earlier success in court. In a joint statement issued on Friday (Jan 9), they said: “The AGC should respond to how that squares with their current position that there is insufficient evidence to continue prosecution.”
They were responding to the AGC’s announcement on Thursday (Jan 8) that it had decided on NFA in relation to the Yayasan Akalbudi case, describing the move as a final termination of proceedings. The groups said they were “appalled” by the statement, stressing that a prima facie case means the prosecution had already proven, through credible evidence, each element of the offences, sufficient to warrant a conviction if unrebutted.
“This means that the prosecution had already proved their case against Zahid at this stage,” they said, questioning how the AGC could now conclude there was insufficient evidence. They warned that the decision had fuelled public doubt over the integrity of the criminal justice system, and urged the government to publish clear and fair prosecutorial guidelines, alongside efforts to separate the roles of Attorney General and Public Prosecutor.
Similar concerns were raised by lawyers from across the political and legal spectrum, including Bukit Gelugor MP Ramkarpal Singh, Lawyers for Liberty co-founder Latheefa Koya, and lawyers Rajesh Nagarajan and Rafique Rashid Ali. Ramkarpal said the AGC’s statement “lacks substance and amounts to a mere general statement that it is now satisfied that the matter ought not to be proceeded with”.
“Given the above, the AGC must explain why it is now of the view that the prima facie findings of the High Court against Zahid do not carry weight, especially when those findings were based on its own evidence led in court,” he said, warning that failure to do so would further erode public confidence.
In January 2022, High Court judge Colin Lawrence Sequerah ordered Zahid to enter his defence after finding a prima facie case had been established following a trial that began in 2019. Despite this, the prosecution sought and obtained a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) in September 2023, citing the need for further investigations. The AGC later said those investigations, conducted by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), and a review of new material led it to conclude the evidence was insufficient to proceed.
Latheefa criticised the explanation sharply, saying the decision “stank to high heaven”. She asked whether Zahid would have received the same treatment if he were not deputy prime minister or a key political ally, adding: “The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Something is rotten in Putrajaya.”
Rafique and Rajesh echoed concerns that the case should have been left to the courts to decide, with Rajesh saying there was now a perception of reluctance to complete cases involving powerful political figures. “Ordinary Malaysians are left asking a simple question: why pursue the case this far if there was never an intention to see it through?” he said.
Ramkarpal also noted that the AGC did not state whether it had reviewed the High Court’s 2022 prima facie findings before deciding on NFA. While the AGC said the decision marked the end of the case, Ramkarpal explained that the DNAA technically leaves open the possibility of future charges unless it is converted into a discharge amounting to an acquittal (DAA).
Zahid’s lead defence lawyer, Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, confirmed that the defence will now apply for a full acquittal. “We will make an application to court for a full acquittal,” he told The Edge. A DAA would permanently bar the prosecution from reviving the same charges.
The Yayasan Akalbudi case involved allegations that Zahid misappropriated RM31 million from his charitable foundation, comprising 12 counts of criminal breach of trust, eight corruption charges and 27 counts of money laundering. The latest development follows earlier legal gains for Zahid, including his 2022 acquittal on 40 graft charges linked to a foreign visa system contract, after prosecutors withdrew their appeal in December 2024.