Yesterday (6 September), a lawyer representing Ahmad Zahid Hamidi told the High Court that Zahid ought to be immune from prosecution because he has truthfully disclosed all transactions related to his family-run Yayasan Akalbudi (YAB) charity foundation.
Lead counsel, Hisyam Teh Poh Teik said the accused is claiming immunity from prosecution under Section 30(7) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act.
“The accused (Zahid) had on July 2, 2018, and July 3, 2018, made two statements pursuant to Section 30(3)(b) of the MACC Act. By these two statements, the accused had disclosed information and therefore under Section 30 (7) of the MACC Act, he is clothed with immunity from prosecution.” he said.
“We submit that he is immune from prosecution for charges of criminal breach of trust (CBT), corruption and money laundering charges in respect of all information he had disclosed to MACC three years ago.” he added, according to FMT.
Zahid is currently standing trial on 47 charges of money laundering and CBT involving funds from YAB, and accepting bribes for various projects during his tenure as the home minister.
His trial began on 18 November 2019 and was heard for 52 days over a period of two years.
In addition, Hisyam also told the court that Section 30(7) of MACC Act was applicable in Zahid’s case when the authorities took his statement in July 2018.
“Thus, applying subsection 30(7) to the facts of this case, it is respectfully submitted that the accused is therefore immune and cannot be prosecuted for 46 out of the 47 offences. These 46 offences are in respect of all 12 criminal breach of trust (CBT) charges, 7 out of the 8 corruption charges, and for all 27 money laundering charges.” he said.
In addition, Hisyam also said the charges made against Zahid were instituted by former attorney-general Tan Sri Tommy Thomas.
“The prosecution cannot say that they have proven the charges against him.” he added.
Meanwhile, he also pointed out that if the information provided by Zahid was deemed “false” by MACC, they should have charged Zahid with making a false statement to mislead them.
“One of the investigating officers (Fairul Rafiq Hamirudin) affirmed that my client was not charged under Section 27 for providing false information.” he said.
He then told the court that former attorney-general, Tan Sri Tommy Thomas had acted “unfairly” in pressing the 47 charges against Zahid.
“This is a case of over-prosecution and the law does not allow that.” he said.
What do you think about this? Share your thoughts!