- Advertisement -

Zahid's case not the same as Muhyiddin's, say lawyers

They rubbish a statement by Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, who likened Ahmad Zahid Hamidi's DNAA to Muhyiddin Yassin's acquittal.

Ahmad Mustakim Zulkifli
2 minute read
Lawyers Rafique Rashid (left) and Zaid Ibrahim.
Lawyers Rafique Rashid (left) and Zaid Ibrahim.

Two lawyers have brushed off a statement by Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, who drew parallels between the discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) granted to Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi yesterday and the acquittal of former prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin over four abuse of power charges last month.

Speaking to MalaysiaNow, Rafique Rashid said the prosecution in Zahid's trial had applied for the DNAA despite a prima facie for 47 charges of corruption related to Yayasan Akalbudi established against the Umno president.

"This is totally different from Muhyiddin's case because it was his team who filed for the charges to be dismissed, and the court found the charges to be defective," he said.

Saifuddin said yesterday that the DNAA given to Zahid was a standard process in court.

"The decision was made through the court's due process, just like how the court acquitted Bersatu president Muhyiddin.

"So, if today the court also makes the same decision, that's the court's decision," Saifuddin said.

Rafique said that Saifuddin, who does not come from a legal background, should be cautious when making such statements.

"What he says can be construed as the government's stance on the matter, which, in this case, is wrong," he added.

Former law minister Zaid Ibrahim, meanwhile, said there was a clear explanation as to why Muhyiddin was acquitted.

"The court, after hearing the arguments, decided he had no case to answer. The charges were flawed," he told MalaysiaNow.

Zaid added that in Zahid's case, however, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim must provide answers.

"Why was Zahid discharged after he was ordered to enter his defence? This has never happened before.

"I don't know why, and for this, you have to ask the attorney-general, the law minister, and the prime minister," he said.