Ex-MACC boss: 'Bossku's DNAA is a failure of prosecutorial governance that demands immediate reform'
THE recent decision by the Kuala Lumpur High Court to grant a discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) to Datuk Seri Najib Razak in the SRC International money laundering case has reignited urgent concerns regarding the integrity, professionalism and accountability of prosecutorial decisions in Malaysia.
Filed in 2019 under then attorney-general (AG) Tan Sri Tommy Thomas, the charges involved RM27 mil under the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2020 (AMLA).
Yet, as of 2025, the prosecution has acknowledged it is still not prepared to proceed. This is more than a delay – it is a failure of prosecutorial governance that demands immediate reform.
Why this matters?
Why charge if the case isn't ready?
Prosecutions should only be brought forward when sufficient, admissible evidence is available and the prosecution is trial-ready. Anything less violates due process and undermines public trust in the legal system.
What happened under two successive AGs?
Under the tenure of Tan Sri Idrus Harun and Tan Sri Ahmad Terriruddin Mohd Salleh, the case stalled with no meaningful review or resolution, pointing to a breakdown in internal accountability.
Does this violate constitutional rights?
Yes. The prolonged delay infringes Article 5(1) – the right to a fair and expeditious trial – and Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution which guarantees equality before the law. Selective delays and prolonged inaction are constitutionally indefensible.
What does a DNAA mean?
A DNAA is neither an acquittal nor a conviction – it suspends proceedings indefinitely, leaving both the accused and the public in legal and moral limbo without resolution or closure.
What must be done
Under the leadership of Tan Sri Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar, the AG's Chambers (AGC) must take bold, decisive steps to restore institutional credibility and uphold the rule of law by:
Ensuring all future charges are based on sufficient, admissible evidence and are trial-ready from the outset.
Institutionalise internal review mechanisms to monitor and resolve long-pending or high-profile cases.
Drive critical reform: separate the roles of AG and public prosecutor to eliminate conflicts of interest and strengthen prosecutorial independence.
A justice system that works – not one that waits
Justice cannot be charged today, delayed for years and then justified later.
For public confidence in the legal system to be sustained, justice must be transparent, efficient and independent. Malaysia cannot afford a justice system where high-profile cases are charged for headlines but never tried in court.
This is not the time for institutional silence. This is the time for action.
Reform must begin with a professional, principled and prepared prosecutorial authority – and the AG must lead that charge without fear or favour. – June 21, 2025
Tan Sri Dzulkifli Ahmad was the former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner.
The views expressed are solely of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malaysiakini
an hour ago
- Malaysiakini
We had 'no other choice', AGC says over Najib's DNAA
The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) said it "did not have any other choice" but to await the conclusion of Najib Abdul Razak's 1MDB and the first SRC International trials, before it could use the overlapping documents required for the second SRC International case. The agency emphasised the necessity of securing the required documents as evidence, explaining that...
Focus Malaysia
an hour ago
- Focus Malaysia
Rafizi to speak freely, unbound by ministerial post
FORMER economy minister and PKR MP Rafizi Ramli stated on his podcast 'Yang Berhenti Menteri' that he would rather resign from the Cabinet than remain a 'lame duck' minister unable to voice differing opinions. Now that he is free to voice differing opinions, he took a swipe at the Education Ministry, questioning, 'Where's the major policy framework (from the ministry)? But they're busy talking about someone who resigned.' He said their bickering about his resignation annoyed him, and after two years and a half, the ministry in question has nothing to show. He stepped down after losing the PKR deputy presidency to Nurul Izzah Anwar, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's daughter, believing it signalled Anwar's lack of confidence in his leadership. Rafizi argued that staying on as a minister in the Cabinet of Anwar would undermine his legitimacy, hinder economic reforms, and make him complicit in the toxic political culture he opposes. He rejected an offer to be an appointed deputy president, seeing it as a way to silence him while exploiting his supporters. Rafizi emphasised the need for space for dissent within PKR to uphold reform principles and warned against dismissing grassroots members, indirectly criticising PKR figures like Fadhlina Sidek and R Ramanan for overlooking the party's history and supporters. He highlighted achievements in the Economy Ministry but noted the 13th Malaysia Plan and Anti-Rent Seeking Act as unfinished initiatives. While denying plans to form a new party, Rafizi humorously mentioned a gathering to 'celebrate' his loss, focusing on maintaining government stability. — June 21, 2025
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Malay Mail
Legal quagmire when a fatwa does not apply to companies but a ruling does — Hafiz Hassan
JUNE 21 — According to Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution, law includes written law, which in turn comprises federal law and state law. Federal law includes legislation made by Parliament (Acts), while state law consists of legislation enacted by the State Legislative Assemblies (Enactments or Ordinances). A fatwa is both federal and state law. It is federal law when issued under the Administration of Islamic Law Act, and it is state law when made under the respective Enactments or Ordinances of each state — but law nonetheless. A fatwa (plural: fatawa) in Islamic jurisprudence is a formal ruling or interpretation on a point of Islamic law, issued by a qualified legal scholar (mufti) in response to a specific question posed by an individual (mustafti). The ruling is a practical application of Islamic law to a particular issue and is given after the mufti has engaged in ijtihad to reach a legal conclusion. Ijtihad refers to the process of striving to derive legal rulings from the primary sources of Islamic law — the Quran and the Sunnah — when a clear and direct ruling is not available. It involves a comprehensive understanding of Islamic legal theory (usul al-fiqh) and the ability to apply it to new or emerging issues. The relationship between ijtihad and fatwa is this: ijtihad is the methodology; fatwa is the product. A mufti uses ijtihad to formulate a legal conclusion, which is then issued as a fatwa. Although considered authoritative, fatwas are generally not binding and typically serve as advisory opinions. Under Malaysian law (Acts, Enactments or Ordinances), a fatwa is defined as a ruling on any unsettled or controversial question related to Islamic law. No statement made by a mufti shall be deemed a fatwa unless and until it is published in the Gazette. Once published, a fatwa is binding on every Muslim resident in the relevant territory or state as a dictate of their religion, and it becomes their religious duty to observe and uphold the fatwa — unless Islamic law allows personal deviation in matters of belief, observance or opinion. A fatwa is also recognised by the Shariah courts as authoritative on all matters addressed within it. (See, for example, Section 34 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993.) By definition, a Muslim is a person who professes the religion of Islam. A person, in turn, includes a body of persons, corporate or unincorporated. (See Section 3 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967.) Federal law includes legislation made by Parliament, while state law consists of legislation enacted by the State Legislative Assemblies. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa Another product of ijtihad is what is otherwise referred to as a ruling under the law. Take, for example, the rulings issued by the Shariah Advisory Council (SAC) of Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM). The SAC was established in May 1997 as the highest Shariah authority for Islamic financial institutions in Malaysia. Its roles and functions as the authoritative body for the ascertainment of Islamic law in the context of Islamic finance — which is supervised and regulated by BNM — were reinforced with the enactment of the Central Bank of Malaysia Act 2009 (CBA). (See Sections 51 and 52 of the CBA.) The SAC plays a pivotal role in ensuring the consistent application of Shariah rulings across Islamic financial institutions. These rulings serve as the primary reference to ensure end-to-end Shariah compliance in the structuring and implementation of financial products and activities. Crucially, Section 57 of the CBA makes these rulings binding on Islamic financial institutions. Furthermore, Section 58 of the CBA provides that SAC rulings 'shall prevail' over any ruling made by a Shariah body or committee of an Islamic financial institution. And so we arrive at this paradox: following the majority decision of the Federal Court in the Sisters in Islam Forum fatwa case, one product of ijtihad (a fatwa) does not bind companies, but another (a ruling) does. The majority reasoned that only a natural person can profess the religion of Islam. However, the judgment did not address the definition of 'person' under Section 3 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967. (As noted above, 'person' includes corporate entities.) We respect the decision of the majority. But after years of legal proceedings, it is humbly submitted that we are not yet out of a legal quagmire. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
