Would the Malaysian Bar challenge DNAA regardless of a politician’s party?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Malaysian Bar said it would challenge DNAA regardless of which politician or party is involved
Malaysian Bar president Anand Raj said the Bar’s decision to challenge a DNAA would not depend on the politician’s party. He stated that the Bar would have taken up the issue “whoever the politician was, from whichever party he or she was from,” adding that it was “not personal against Zahid.” He said the Bar’s position is grounded in law and legal principles rather than personal or partisan considerations.
The Bar framed its DNAA challenge as law-based, not party-based
Anand Raj said the Malaysian Bar is not political or partisan and makes its stand based on law and justice. He described the Bar’s court challenges as engagements with legal principles, even when public perception may see them as confrontational because many public-interest cases are filed against the government. He also said the Bar challenges actions on law and justice rather than challenging policies.
The Zahid Hamidi Yayasan Akalbudi DNAA request was described as unusual on procedure and scale
Anand said the Zahid Hamidi Yayasan Akalbudi case was unusual because the prosecution sought DNAA at a late stage “after so much effort” had already been made. He pointed to the scale of the trial process cited in his explanation, including 99 prosecution witnesses, 15 defence witnesses, and substantial time and taxpayer money spent. In his account, asking for DNAA at that stage was “very unusual,” which was part of why the Malaysian Bar challenged it in court.
Anand said the Bar would have acted the same way for any politician
Anand explicitly rejected the idea that the DNAA challenge was personal or targeted. He said the Bar would have taken up the matter regardless of which politician it involved and regardless of which party that politician belonged to. He also contrasted the Zahid case with other, simpler DNAA situations where there are fewer witnesses and where the prosecution seeks DNAA after new discoveries.
The Bar’s court challenges in Zahid’s case span two separate AG decisions
Anand said the Malaysian Bar currently has two separate court challenges involving the Attorney General’s decisions in Zahid’s case. One challenge relates to a September 2023 request for DNAA in the Yayasan Akalbudi trial, and the other relates to a January 2026 classification of the case as “No Further Action” (NFA). He presented these as part of the Bar’s ongoing legal actions tied to how the decisions were made.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Would the Malaysian Bar challenge DNAA regardless of a politician’s party?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends