SHAH ALAM - There is no need for Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi to file an affidavit to oppose the Malaysian Bar's bid to challenge the discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) granted to him at this stage.
It's president Karen Cheah said it was unclear why the Deputy Prime Minister needed to do so before the hearing of the Bar's application for leave to initiate a jucidial review to challenge the DNAA order which was set on Jan 11, next year by the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
Under the Rules of Court 2012, she said there was no necessity for Zahid to do so at this juncture, since a proper notice of hearing will be provided to all affected parties at a later stage if leave was granted.
She said if Zahid had opted to attend court on the day of the hearing, he could apply to be heard and the judge would consider such application.
"Any submissions on points of law raised by him on that day is subject to the court's discretion and consideration as it may deem fit," she said when contacted.
Besides, she said the High Court had made it clear through a letter dated Dec 22, 2023, sent to Zahid's counsel that the hearing for leave was ex-parte in nature.
She said Zahid was a putative second respondent which meant that he was a 'would be' respondent in the event leave was granted by the court.
Yesterday, it was reported that Zahid's lawyer Guok Ngek Seong said they would file an affidavit and argument to contest the Bar's application before Jan 11, 2024.
On Dec 4, in a statement, Cheah said the legal body is seeking an order to annul the Attorney-General's (AG) Sept 4 decision on Zahid’s application for a DNAA.
It is seeking an order to declare that the AG’s decision is null and void, asserting that it exceeded the jurisdiction and authority granted to the AG.
On Sept 4, the High Court granted Zahid a DNAA for 47 charges related to criminal breach of trust, corruption, and money laundering involving Yayasan Akalbudi funds, after the prosecution informed that the Attorney-General's Chambers wanted to halt the proceedings against him to scrutinise new evidence.