PUTRAJAYA: The judiciary is at the receiving end of misplaced blame each time the public does not well receive a court decision, says Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.
She said the courts were often chastised for making “consequential orders” that resulted from the prosecution withdrawing their cases, adding that this causes the public’s confidence in the judiciary to erode.
The top judge was commenting on high-profile cases in which saw politicians accused of criminal offences being discharged.
“These decisions were not particularly well-received by the public, and a large part of the blame was put on the judiciary for making the only available orders upon the withdrawal of such charges,” she said in her speech at the Opening of Legal Year 2024.
She said the public fails to understand that the person responsible for the decision to withdraw cases is the public prosecutor and not the courts.
Under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution, the Attorney General, who is also the Public Prosecutor has the discretion to institute, conduct, or discontinue any proceeding for an offence other than before a Syariah Court.
CJ Tengku Maimun said after a withdrawal was decided upon, the courts only have one of two very limited consequential options.
She said that there are two options depending on the facts; either granting an order of discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) or a discharge amounting to an acquittal, which can be called a DAA.
“The courts cannot turn around and insist to the public prosecutor that a charge remain. Each of them, the judiciary and the public prosecutor, have their constitutionally demarcated constitutional functions,” said CJ Tengku Maimun.
She added that both must be adjudged fairly for exercising their powers to the exclusion of the other.
“And yet, when a charge is withdrawn, the judge making the only available consequential orders is painted as corrupt, sometimes as incompetent, or sometimes both,” she said.
On Sept 3 last year, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi was granted a DNAA by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on 12 counts of criminal breach of trust, eight counts of bribery, and 27 counts of money laundering about the misappropriation of millions in funds from Yayasan Akalbudi.
The decision received public backlash.
On Dec 2, last year, the Malaysian Bar applied for leave to commence a judicial review against the AGC’s decision to withdraw its case against Ahmad Zahid.
