Why was the RM6.6b IPIC case discharged not amounting to acquittal?

Question

Accepted Answer

Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal Granted in RM6.6b IPIC Case

The High Court granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) to former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and former Treasury secretary-general Tan Sri Mohd Irwan Serigar Abdullah in the RM6.6 billion International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) case. This decision was made by High Court judge Justice Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin, who invoked his inherent powers due to the prosecution's persistent failure to present documentary evidence since 2018, leading to an inordinate delay in the proceedings.
Prosecution's Failure to Produce Evidence

The prosecution had consistently failed to produce the necessary documentary evidence for the RM6.6 billion IPIC case. This failure to present crucial evidence has been ongoing since 2018, contributing significantly to the prolonged delay in bringing the case to a resolution. The absence of this evidence impeded the progress of the trial.
Inordinate Delay in Proceedings

Justice Muhammad Jamil Hussin explicitly stated that the delay in the case was inordinate. This prolonged and excessive delay, stemming from the prosecution's inability to furnish evidence, was a key factor leading to the judge's decision to utilise his inherent powers. Such delays can prejudice the administration of justice and the rights of the accused.
Exercise of Inherent Powers by the Court

The judge exercised his inherent powers to grant the DNAA. Inherent jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to undertake all actions reasonably required for the fair administration of justice within its purview, provided these actions are consistent with existing laws. This reserve of powers allows courts to act when it is just and equitable, particularly to uphold due process, prevent oppression, ensure fairness between parties, and secure a fair trial. The courts have a fundamental responsibility to prevent injustice when circumstances warrant such intervention.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why was the RM6.6b IPIC case discharged not amounting to acquittal?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends