People must fight for their RIGHTS and the Environment - Deepending on Politicians is FOOLISH - ALL Talk No Action - then comes the excuses...????

Sometimes we cannot depend on Prime Minister, politicians and even government to act in defence of people and communities. The PEOPLE must act against injustice and in defence of their HUMAN RIGHTS and rights of others..

Sometimes POLITICIANS are all TALK NO ACTION - it is foolish at times to believe verbal commitments, assurances and PROMISES that sound GOOD - because after that the PEOPLE's problems, issues and causes are forgotten ...

WE have to go to the PUBLIC to fight for rights and justice in PUBLIC. We have to tell people the ISSUES so they can understand our PLIGHT and then JOIN IN THE FIGHT for Justice...

In Malaysia, the law says that the PUBLIC must be consulted for some DEVELOPMENT Project - but it may not happen, because sometimes these 'politically-appointed'(not democratically chosen and elected by the people/community' STEAL our rights of PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - The political appointees 'quietly' give the approval for these projects without the community knowing. WHY? They are political appointees so they listen to the political masters not the people...or sometimes, BRIBES too may be involved...  When the people then protest, the government's answer is that the people were consulted - and the people agreed and may show you letters of Ketua Kampung or JKKK or even the political appointed Local Council(not chosen and elected by the people) - That is why in Malaysia, we need DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES...Were the people in Kuantan/Gebeng consulted before the Rare Earth Lynas factory was approved.

Did the PM Anwar Ibrahim's MADANI government even REALLY consult the people before now extending Lynas licence for 10 Years? 

People must stop relying on promises of politicians - and FIGHT on their own for JUSTICE and Human Rights.  

Below is the struggle of a community and others for the ENVIRONMENT and for their rights...

 

Statement of the Pattani River Protection Network

6 May 2026

 

The march against the Krong Pinang Dam, held from 4–6 May 2026, was driven by one fundamental aspiration:

 

to liberate the Pattani River from rigid infrastructures that destroy the river’s natural potential and undermine the just and equitable use of the river by local communities.

 

The Pattani River Protection Network therefore puts forward the following three demands:

The cancellation of the Krong Pinang Water Gate Project (Krong Pinang Dam)

The revocation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report

The cancellation of the Pattani River Basin Development Plan of 1967

 

Following initial negotiations between the Pattani River Protection Network and the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre (SBPAC), the following preliminary outcomes were reached:

 

The SBPAC will coordinate with the Office of the National Water Resources (ONWR), as the lead agency of the National Water Resources Plan, and the Royal Irrigation Department to consider suspending or terminating the Krong Pinang Dam project, the 1967 Pattani River Basin Development Plan, and all related actions and operations.

 

The SBPAC, together with the Advisory Council for the Administration and Development of the Southern Border Provinces, will coordinate with the Pattani River Protection Network to establish a joint committee to study future approaches for the development and management of the Pattani River Basin. This process will proceed through the Strategic Committee for Southern Border Provinces Development (KPT) and will be guided by the principles of the Green River approach, grounded in meaningful and fair public participation.

 

The Pattani River Protection Network extends its deepest gratitude to all sisters and brothers, communities, and supporters who joined together to raise their voices in defense of the river and the rights of the people who depend on it.

 

We will continue to monitor and hold all parties accountable in order to uphold the spirit and determination of this struggle until genuine victory is achieved.

 

The Pattani River must flow free.

 

Pattani River Protection Network

6 May 2026

Opposition to Krong Pinang Dam in Yala Province: Three Demands Citing Community Rights Violations

Interview05 May 2026 14:23 GMT+7

• 
  

AI-Translated

*This English content is automatically translated from Thai version by AI. Thairath does not guarantee accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the translation. Please refer to the Thai version

See original (Thai)

Civil society opposes the Krong Pinang Dam in Yala Province, submitting three demands to “stop the project,” citing violations of community rights and river rights under international law related to the river.

The Pattani River Protection Network, together with human rights defenders and residents of Krong Pinang District and the Pattani River Basin community network, organized a 19-kilometer march from Ban Lue Mu community in Yala Province, where the project site is located, to the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Center (SBPAC) to submit a letter to its secretary-general on 4–5 May.

The network's three demands are to halt the Krong Pinang water gate project and propose its suspension to the Cabinet, stating that the project will affect the livelihoods, economy, and culture of communities along the Pattani River, as well as the river's ecosystem in the long term. They also call for canceling the EIA report and revoking the 1967 Pattani River Basin Development Plan.

Current Time 0:00

/

Duration 1:56

Environmental impact analysis report lacks public participation.

The network stated that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report, prepared by a consultancy hired by the Royal Irrigation Department between 2017 and 2019, has critical flaws regarding completeness of information and public participation processes. Much of the information does not align with facts on the ground and fails to truly reflect how communities use the resources.

The communities therefore view the EIA as illegitimate and believe it may lead to policy decisions unfairly impacting the people.

Large-scale project impacts 10 riverside communities.

The Krong Pinang water gate project is part of the Pattani River Basin development plan since 1967, continuing from the construction of Bang Lang and Mae Lan dams. It consists of eight water gates, 88 meters wide, 8 meters high, and 80 meters long, with a budget of 3,565.52 million baht.

The project will straighten and dam the Pattani River, expected to directly affect at least 10 riverside communities in terms of their economy, lifestyle, and local culture.

"River rights" under international law.

Sohabudin Loyapa, a human rights defender and coordinator of the Pattani River Protection Network, said their three main demands are to halt this project, initiate a water management process that respects ecosystems and community ways of life, and to cancel the EIA report and the 1967 Pattani River Basin Development Plan.

He added that the project not only impacts domestic community rights but also violates international human rights principles, especially the public’s right to participate in environmental decisions, fair access to natural resources, and the right to maintain local community lifestyles and cultures.

This includes the increasingly recognized international principle of "Rights of Rivers," which views rivers not merely as resources to be used but as ecosystems with rights to exist, be restored, and flow naturally.

This principle aligns with trends in international law and rulings in several countries that recognize legal status for rivers and emphasize the state's duty to protect ecosystems alongside community rights.

The walk aims to communicate publicly and to policymakers that the community does not consent to the project and calls on the government to reconsider water management approaches based on social and environmental justice.

Photo by Pattani River Protection Network - Thairath, 5/5/2026

 

398 3R post taken down - HOW many have been charged in Court? MCMC may think it breaks the LAW but it is IRRELEVANT ONLY Court decision matters? END CENSORSHIP

A total of 398 items related to issues involving race, religion and royalty (3Rs) were taken down by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission from January to April....“For this year, 750 requests have been submitted to platform owners, and so far, 398 of them have been taken down,” she [Deputy communications minister Teo Nie Ching ] said.

The question that must be asked:-

WHO decided on which 3R post to be taken down? Were these post even in in breach of Malaysian law? 

Was it Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil or Deputy communications minister Teo Nie Ching? 

Was it  Mohamad Salim Fateh Din, the MCMC Chairman of the  Commission or the Commission itself? 

 It is interesting that Malaysia knows Azam Baki, the Chief Commissioner of MACC, but we almost never see the name of  Mohamad Salim Fateh Din, the MCMC Chief Commissioner(known as the Chairman of the Commission). It is important to know Mohamad Salim Fateh Din because he and his other Commissioners would reasonably be the one deciding which of our Malaysian's post to censor, remove or take down. WHY did the Minister extend the TERM of Mohamad Salim Fateh Din - EXPLAIN Minister? He is still the Executive Vice Chairman of property and construction companies, MRCB . Would not someone with a Communication background or some 'credible' ex-Judge or even some senior public officer or ex-officer be better? Mohamad Salim Fateh Din name came out in the Murray Hunter cases - '...Murray Hunter has publicly apologised and retracted a series of articles and posts in which he made statements about the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) and its chairman, Tan Sri Mohamad Salim Fateh Din..' 

Section 6  Membership of Commission MALAYSIAN COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA COMMISSION ACT 1998

The Commission shall consist of the following members who shall be appointed by the Minister:

(a) a Chairman;

(b) three members representing the Government; and

(c) not less than two but not more than five other members.

So, in MCMC, it is  Fahmi Fadzil the Minister of Communications that picks and appoints the Chairman and members of MCMC - so all blame about wrongs of MCMC falls on Fahmi Fadzil - the censorship, the blocking, the taking down of post, etc  

Follow the Charles Hector channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb6UokfB4hdNugYmph1B   

Justice Demands Right to be Heard, and charges in Court 

So, Deputy Ministers says that 398 post/items have been taken down BUT why has the alleged 398 perpetrators not been investigated and charged yet. Did they break the LAW? How can one say this is JUSTICE if no one gets charged in Court and accorded a FAIR Trial. 

Yes, 398 taken down but there was 720 take down request by MACC - so we should be seeing about 720 persons being charged. IF NOT, is the new policy 'find and return stolen goods and not charge the perpetrator' - this is NOT RIGHT. 

Alternatively, it is ALL 'LIES' - and these post/items were not in violation of any criminal law but just a mere opinion of Mohamad Salim Fateh Din and the commissioners in MCMC? By not charging in Court, there is NO WAY for Malaysians, and more importantly the Courts, to determine whether LAW was broken, OR whether it was just an abuse of powers based on mere opinions of the MCMC?

NOTE it seems also that the alleged perpetrator may also not be aware of the REASONS for the removal of their post or the blocking of their social media accounts. They may not even know that it was the government or MCMC that did this? So, the naturally believe it was the Social Media App owner/operator that did this - and many will not even challenge these Apps for the removal because they are BIG companies, and sometimes registered overseas. SO, government or MCMC may end up 'SAFE' for people do not know that it was MCMC that did it, and not the Social Media App on its own. We were 'shot' but we are uncertain as to who shot us and WHY? This is a GROSS INJUSTICE which should be CORRECTED.

SOLUTION - No taking down social media post/blocking Malaysian accounts without a COURT order - giving the Court the power to determine whether the post/item broke the law or not warrants immediate taking down, and also making sure that the owner of the account the opportunity of the right top be heard or to contest that blocking decision.  

This is NOT right - whenever a post is to be taken down or an online account blocked - that decision should not be made by politicians and persons they picked to be Chief Commissioners or Commissioners in MCMC - JUSTLY it should require a COURT ORDER...

Justly, the person who posted it should also be informed, and accorded a RIGHT TO BE HEARD - the right to have his/her post reinstated if the Court Order on the application of MCMC was WRONG.

The person whose RIGHTS are violated when his post is taken down, or his social media account is BLOCKED has a right to know WHO THE PERPETRATOR IS? Then, he/she has a right to SUE the Minister, MCMC or the social media app owner who did it on the REQUEST/ORDER of the Minister/MCMC? Yes, it is a violation of our personal RIGHT of communication/expression/opinion - and if it was done against the law - we can SUE  Fahmi Fadzil, the Minister (maybe even Anwar Ibrahim the Prime Minister that chose and made Fahmi the Minister of Communication). Does Fahmi, a Chemical Engineering graduate, have the legal knowledge and capacity to know whether a post breaks Malaysian laws? Does the MCMC members do? Note, their action now it seems, are even without the CONSENT of the Attorney General.

What I or you think is a breaking of the LAW of Malaysia is irrelevant - ONLY the Courts have the right to determine whether a post/item online broke the Malaysian Law? 

Teo said they were part of 8,540 items removed from 2022 until last month. 

Besides 3R, many posts have been removed and accounts blocked - but there is still DOUBT whether the government is blocking anti-Anwar or anti-government posts - to stop the revelation of 'truths' that may erode public support...At the same time, one wonders why the allegations about persons 'hired', ordered or otherwise to post support for Anwar and the MADANI  government is yet to be investigated > for these posts may 'DECEIVE' the Malaysian voters as to how much support Anwar and his government has from Malaysians??

uncovered a network of at least 263 accounts engaging in a coordinated campaign to artificially boost support for Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim on his official Facebook page....Experts who reviewed the findings said the patterns clearly indicate professional astroturfing – a campaign designed to create a false impression of grassroots support. -  Anwar & MADANI - stop violating our right to freedom of expression, freedom to communicate with others, and FREEDOM to have a different view from PM Anwar and the TRUTH? The Murray Hunter saga...

Malaysiakini investigative journalism highlighted this before 

Investigation: Network of 263 'cybertroopers' spurs Anwar's FB support 

Part 2: Deception and data: Inside the investigation of pro-Anwar CIB network

Part 3: Experts: Systemic challenges enable persistent influence networks

 SO,  Communication Minister Fahmi Fadzil - Tell us whether this 'astroturfing' to deceive Malaysians is an OFFENCE in Malaysia - or is there move to make it an OFFENCE - we cannot feed Malaysians LIES to generate the impression that Anwar and his MADANI government enjoys 'great support' in such ways.

Was the Malaysiakini reports even INVESTIGATED?

When people do not know what exactly is against the LAW - they may break the law. Hence, it is important to reveal what post/items break the law and WHY it broke the law? 

If I disagree with the Selangor Sultan about his view about PIG farming - will that be considered a law-breaking 3R post?  

MALAYSIA is a DEMOCRACY and everyone has a RIGHT to their views/opinions - and the right to share interesting posts with others. 

Anwar and the GOVERNMENT have NO RIGHT to tell us that we have NO right to express ourself or even criticize the PM or the government - OR am I wrong?  

Close to 400 3R-related items taken down in first 4 months

2 hours ago

Bernama

Deputy communications minister Teo Nie Ching says the number of complaints submitted to platform owners has been rising each year.

Deputy communications minister Teo Nie Ching said 8,540 items involving 3R issues have been removed by MCMC from 2022 until April this year. (Bernama pic)

JOHOR BAHRU:

 

A total of 398 items related to issues involving race, religion and royalty (3Rs) were taken down by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission from January to April.

Deputy communications minister Teo Nie Ching said this followed 750 complaints received during the period.

Teo said they were part of 8,540 items removed from 2022 until last month.

“We have seen the number of complaints rise each year,” she told reporters on the sidelines of a TikTok content creator workshop at SMK Senai here today.

This had resulted in 175 items taken down in 2011, rising to 1,633 in 2023 and 4,830 in 2024, before dropping to 1,504 last year.

“For this year, 750 requests have been submitted to platform owners, and so far, 398 of them have been taken down,” she said.

Teo said most of the cases were investigated by the police based on an understanding with MCMC.

“MCMC acts as a technical partner by providing expert support to assist the police in identifying the individuals behind the accounts involved.

“The decision on whether a case is brought to court or action is taken under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 is subject to the consideration of the Attorney General’s Chambers,” she said. - FMT, 9/5/2026

 

 

Mohamad Salim Reappointed As MCMC Chairman

• 18/12/2024 02:18 PM

PUTRAJAYA, Dec 18 (Bernama) -- Tan Sri Mohamad Salim Fateh Din has been reappointed as the chairman of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) for another two-year term, effective March 1, 2025.

MCMC confirmed the appointment with Bernama.  Earlier media reports stated Minister of Communications Fahmi Fadzil extended Mohamad Salim’s tenure on Monday.

He was first appointed MCMC chairman for two years, from March 1, 2023, to Feb 28, 2025.

It was reported that the commission recorded its best financial performance under his leadership, achieving a net income of RM1.13 billion last year.

This was an increase of 38 percent compared to RM820.6 million the previous year.

-- BERNAMA

 

When 'victims' LIE? Compensation for accussed? ORANGE T-Shirts unjust and prejudicial to FAIR TRIAL? End pre-conviction punishment that imposes suffering on the presumed INNOCENT?

A 26-year-old factory worker was discharged and acquitted by the Sessions Court here today after the prosecution withdrew a rape charge when the complainant testified that she had not been raped. 

What is JUST when the accuser/victim admit that they lied? The consequence of this 'FALSEHOOD' caused a person/entity to suffer - REMANDED for 4 months and then had for about 2 years suffering the 'worry' of being convicted on a FALSE CHARGE based on false testimonies..

NOW, it becomes the accused who is the REAL victim here ...and JUSTLY he/she should be COMPENSATED - sadly the criminal law does not provide for this YET - now, all the law provides for is that the CONVICTED criminal pays compensation for the VICTIM - and here too there was a problem for in MOST Criminal Trials in Malaysia, we find that the Court FAILED to order compensation to be paid to VICTIMS...

Failure Of Public Prosecutor to Apply to Court for Compensation for Victims of Crime to Be Paid by the Convicted, Including Those Who Cause Death, is Unforgivable

Now, when a person is 'wrongly' arrested as suspect OR Remanded OR even charged in COURT - that suspect/accused suffers GREAT PREJUDICE as the public perceives them as 'CROOKS' even before the TRIAL and before the Court decides them guilty beyond reasonable DOUBT - the principle of PRESUMPTION of INNOCENCE until tried and proven GUILTY in Court is 'forgotten' - and worse is the fact that the STATE and current practices contributes to this 'Defamation' creating Prejudice to suspects and/or accused...This includes MEDIA Statements by police/Law Enforcement and also the practice of parading suspects/accused persons in ATTIRES that propagate this prejudice...

ABOLISH the practice of making arrestees/suspects wear them glaring ORANGE T-SHIRTs when they are brought to Court for just REMAND applications...

ABOLISH the practice of making accused(only those in Detention who could not afford bail, or were denied Bail) have to wear prison attire when they come to court.

What you wear, and how you look(unkempt and hair not combed) will definitely ALSO affect Magistrates and Judges, because they too are Human... and if suspects/accused persons are discriminated by reason of what they WEAR, their unshaven face, their uncombed hair - it is, in my opinion, a GROSS violation of human rights, and my be a also violation of the right to a FAIR Trial.

Those not detained or out on BAIL can come to court all decent and properly attired liked Najib Tun Razak - so, ALL SUSPECTS/ACCUSED who come before Magistrate for Remand proceedings, and before Magistrate/Judges for TRIALS should be allowed to appear well-dressed, shaven, hair combed - and without 'DISCRIMINATORY' T-Shirts, attires - REMOVE all that will PREJUDICE suspects/accused and ensure FAIR TRIAL.

RIGHT TO APPEAR Before Magistrate/Courts and in PUBLIC in their own attire, or with proper attire in line with the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE ...

The attire of an accused person in court can significantly influence judge perceptions, potentially creating prejudice, as legal professionals often advise that appearance affects trial outcomes. Studies indicate that defendants in prison garb are seen as more aggressive and receive more guilty verdicts than those in business attire  

Hence, the SOLUTION - give arrested suspects when they are brought for REMAND applications, or as accused in court the right to wear normal clothes - not SPRM or other T-shirts, or Prison attire > so that they are 'protected' from prejudice by others..

Of late, a lot of pictures in MEDIA and people see this, and inadvertently believe them to be 'GUILTY' or criminals - it affects their family, children and even close friends. 

The consequence is the SUFFERING of so many by reason of action by the government/State > no problem with what they wear in Detention - But problem when they are paraded in public with such lock-up attires...

MACC 'Corporate Mafia' scandal highlights how such actions can pressure even the INNOCENT to sell shares/appoint Directors/etc ...just because they want to avoid such EMBARRASSMENT and wrong perception  - Hence, Time to do the RIGHT THING....

Najib came to court in coat and suit - whilst others are brought to court in prison clothing (with handcuffs too) as though they are already GUILTY?

MEDIA cover the arrest and the remand application ...and even maybe the start of trial or the charging >>> BUT then, NOT SO when the suspect is RELEASED and not charged, or when the accused is released (unless it is some high profile politician/personality) > THUS, a great injustice..

PER-CONVICTION PUNISHMENT is something that even our Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is against...

PM Anwar Ibrahim was also right when he said “…Before a sentence is passed, suspects should not be punished beforehand,” he said in his speech during the 25th SUHAKAM anniversary here today (BERNAMA, 9/9/2024).- GISBH – Do Not Impose Pre-Conviction ‘Punishment’, Which May Caused Irreversible Damage to Business and Workers, Based on Allegations or Police’s Suspicions Before the Court Makes A Determination Of Guilt (MADPET)

 

SO, treat them as INNOCENT - do not make them wear ORANGE T-SHIRTS or prison garb when they are brought into the OPEN visible to the PUBLIC. 

Maybe also no pictures of mere suspects and/or in prison attire to be published in MEDIA that will also be 'per-conviction punishment'.

Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holding (GISBH) - What happened to them is a BIG CONCERN - Were they victims of SOME, maybe even PM Anwar's MADANI Government? 

In the beginning, we were given the picture that they were MUSLIM DEVIANTS and ran child-care facilities, where children were subjected to ABUSE even Sexual ABUSE. 

Then GISBH, its members, shareholders/Directors/employees was said to be members of an ‘organized criminal group’, which led to many being detained under SOSMA and denied BAIL > then charge amended that they are just 'members of unlawful society' - if charged with that offence, they would have not had to languish in detention because law denies BAIL.  

The Shah Alam High Court today sentenced GISB Holdings Sdn Bhd (GISBH) chief executive officer Nasiruddin Mohd Ali and Mohammad Adib At-Tamimi, the son of former Al-Arqam founder Ashaari Muhammad, along with 11 other men, to 15 months’ jail each for being members of an unlawful organisation....They were initially charged with being members of an organised criminal group under Section 130V(1) of the Penal Code, which provides imprisonment of not less than five years and a maximum of 20 years upon conviction.... They were ordered to serve their sentences from the date of their arrest, which was between September 2, 2024, and October 12, 2024.

About 13 months in Detention because they were charged with a SOSMA offence - and there was no indication that trial was going to start any time soon. 

Why did prosecution alter the charge if they were truly members of an organised criminal group - or was that charge itself an 'abuse of power' of the Public Prosecutor to simply accord them a 'pre-conviction punishment' of languishing in jail for a long time denied a speedy trial? That is why the guarantee of SPEEDY TRIAL is an important HUMAN RIGHT that must be accorded to accussed persons in Detention, denied Bail? 

An uncertainty of when the trial will start and end - DENIAL of the right of the accused to prove their innocence in court during a trial. Did the confess to the lesser non-SOSMA offence to escape prolonged detention - the cause would be the Public Prosecutor failure to begin and end trial fast?

With GISBH, most of the business premises(if not ALL) seem to have closed > What happened to the employees and those who depended on these businesses for their income.

Then, ACCOUNTS were frozen - but the offences have still not been proven in Court to date??? 

ONE may wonder whether the CRACKDOWN on GISBH was an intentional abuse of power by State? For what reason? Some say because in GISBH (and previously Arqam) they were DESTROYING the myth that the Malay will not survive or succeed without government help or the help of then dominant Malay parties - because Arqam then, and Ikhwan later, was doing just that > succeeding economically without anybodies help - Would this affect UMNO and other Malay political parties support???? Questions to ponder on.

We will discuss this in Greater Depth later - BUT do you think the 'pre-conviction' suffering on the presumed INNOCENT can still be justified? 

SHOULD we be asking whether the laws about FREEZING of ACCOUNTS and other interference with business ought to be REVIEWED - for it looks like pre-conviction punishment??? Should accounts not be FREEZED until the accused has been TRIED and proven GUILTY in Court > UNJUST to stop usage of moneys in accounts that are needed for business, salaries and income - at least not until the end of TRIAL that results in CONVICTION. 

OK to prevent monies from flowing overseas??? (which should have been done when there RM2 Billion Plus in Najib's Account) - but to completely deny access to one's money before the offence is proven in Court after a FAIR Trial is wrong and MOST UNJUST > the law need to be REVIEWED >> business should not be prematurely killed, and people denied access to salary and living expenses...

ALL this freezing of accounts forcing GISBH businesses to close happened in 2024 - and it is now May 2026 >> Businesses closed and livelihoods affected > IF at the end of the day, they are found NOT GUILTY - it is most difficult to ensure JUSTICE be done (around 8-10 Business premises in Temerloh now closed for some time) - and I believe what was done was UNJUST - OK to sentence after Trial and CONVICTION - but then until now the TRIAL is yet to Start - But GISBH has already been punished as their accounts have been frozen, businesses closed,...???

A total of 331 money laundering charges involving more than RM38.1 million against the former chief executive officer (CEO) and three accountants of GISB Holdings Sdn Bhd (GISBH) will be heard before the same judge....All accused were charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, which carries up to 15 years' imprisonment and a fine of at least five times the value of the proceeds or RM5 million, whichever is higher, upon conviction.-NST, 29/1/2026

And still the TRIAL not commenced after it all started in 2024 - Is it just for the CLOSURE of Business establishment and FREEZING of company accounts BEFORE TRIAL and Convictions? I THINK NOT - FIND THEM GUILTY FIRST IN COURT AFTER A FAIR TRIAL AND THEN COMES THE 'SENTENCE' and PUNISHMENT?

Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister Datuk Armizan Mohd Ali said that the offences identified by the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM) include failure to lodge the company's annual returns, failure to prepare Financial Statements, and failure to display the company's name and registration number at the place of business...

If you look at the offenses now - it is LAME - and unjust to freeze bank accounts or 'close' premises... 

What is MOST SAD is that even after the trials - and the GISBH and persons related are found to be NOT GUILTY by court on the money laundering allegations, the company offenses, etc > They have already suffered UNJUST pre-conviction punishment that can never be REVERSED..

What happen to all that CHILD ABUSE and SEXUAL ABUSE allegations against GISBH - was it all 'Lies" just to kill GISBH and its businesses? If some worker commits the crime - you cannot blame GISBH for the crime of some 'bad' workers..

Can we blame ANWAR IBRAHIM or the MADANI Government for the crimes of some bad public officers? As PM, he is responsible for all actions of government ultimately...

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'I wasn't raped': Court frees man after charge withdrawn

By New Straits Times

April 30, 2026 @ 6:59pm

The factory worker with his lawyer following the hearing. - Pic courtesy of NST reader.

KUALA SELANGOR: A 26-year-old factory worker was discharged and acquitted by the Sessions Court here today after the prosecution withdrew a rape charge when the complainant testified that she had not been raped.

The development came during cross-examination by the defence, prompting the prosecution to apply for the charge to be withdrawn.

Judge Nurul Mardhiah Mohammed Redza allowed the application by deputy public prosecutor Muhammad Azamuddin Razak, bringing the case, which had dragged on for more than two years, to an end.

The accused had been charged under Section 376(1) of the Penal Code, which carries a sentence of up to 20 years' imprisonment and whipping upon conviction.

He was accused of raping a woman at a premises in Bestari Jaya about 10.30am on April 21, 2024.

According to the charge, the alleged offence took place at Lot 1501A, Jalan Bakti, Simpang Tiga Ijok, within the Kuala Selangor district.

Defence counsel S. Vinesh said his client had been remanded for about two months at the initial stage of the case before being released on bail, which his family struggled to afford.

"During trial, when cross-examined by the defence, the complainant herself stated, 'saya tidak dirogol', following which the prosecution withdrew the charge.

"This raises serious concerns as to the manner in which the investigation was conducted. While genuine victims must always be protected, investigations must be carried out with proper care, objectivity and diligence to ensure that no person is unjustly deprived of his liberty," he said.

The accused maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings. - NST, 30/4/2026

GISBH CEO, son of ex-Al-Arqam leader among 13 men jailed for 15 months over unlawful group membership

This file picture shows GISB Holdings Sdn Bhd CEO Nasiruddin Mohd Ali (centre) at the High Court in Shah Alam February 12, 2025. — Bernama pic

Friday, 07 Nov 2025 1:20 PM MYT

KAJANG, Nov 7 — The Shah Alam High Court today sentenced GISB Holdings Sdn Bhd (GISBH) chief executive officer Nasiruddin Mohd Ali and Mohammad Adib At-Tamimi, the son of former Al-Arqam founder Ashaari Muhammad, along with 11 other men, to 15 months’ jail each for being members of an unlawful organisation.

Apart from Nasiruddin, 66, and Mohammad Adib At-Tamimi, 33, the other men are Mohd Shukri Mohd Noor, 54; Muhammad Afdaluddin Latif, 35; Mohamad Sayuti Omar, 36; Mohd Fazil Md Jasin, 58; Mohd Dhirar Fakhrur Razi, 35; Mokhtar Tajuddin, 61; Muhammad Fajrul Islam Khalid, 29; Abu Ubaidah Ahmad Shukri, 35; Shuhaimi Mohamed, 57; Hasnan Abd Hamid, 54; and Muhammad Zahid Azhar @ Nadzri, 52.

Judge Datuk Seri Latifah Mohd Tahar meted out the sentence during a proceeding held at the Kajang Prison Complex after they pleaded guilty to the charge.

They were ordered to serve their sentences from the date of their arrest, which was between September 2, 2024, and October 12, 2024.

Meanwhile, Nasiruddin’s wife, Azura Md Yusof, 58, and eight other women were each fined RM4,500, in default seven months’ imprisonment, after pleading guilty to the same charge.

The eight women are Khalilatul-Zalifah Mohammad Jamil, 28; Nur Jannah Omar, 33; Hamimah Yakub, 72; Asmat @ Asmanira Muhammad Ramly, 45; Nurul Jannah Idris, 29; Siti Salmiah Ismail, 58; Siti Hajar Ismail, 52; and Mahani Kasim, 55.

They were initially charged with being members of an organised criminal group under Section 130V(1) of the Penal Code, which provides imprisonment of not less than five years and a maximum of 20 years upon conviction.

However, following a representation from all the accused,  the Attorney General’s Chambers offered them an alternative charge, with becoming members of GISBH, which is an unlawful organisation.

They are charged with committing the offence at a premises in Bandar Country Homes, Rawang, between October 2020 and September 11, 2024.

The charge is framed under Section 43 of the Societies Act 1966 (Act 335) and is punishable with a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment or a fine not exceeding RM5,000 or both, if convicted.

Before handing down the sentence, Judge Latifah said the court took into consideration the guilty pleas of all the accused to the alternative charge, after hearing the prosecution’s aggravating submissions and the defence’s mitigation pleas.

“There are 13 male accused in this case, and the court has taken into account their guilty pleas to the alternative charge, as well as their expression of remorse and regret over their actions. The court also considered the fact that they have been in remand for 13 months,” she said.

As for the female accused, the judge said the court also took into account their guilty pleas and the period they spent in remand, which was about six months, before being granted bail. — Bernama, Malay Mail, 7/11/2025

LETTER | Immediate action needed on call for RCI into GISBH case

Suhakam

Published:  Oct 11, 2024 11:44 AM

⋅

Updated: 11:44 A

LETTER | Suhakam firmly supports the Office of the Children’s Commissioner’s (OCC) recommendation to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to investigate the grave allegations surrounding the Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holdings (GISBH) case.

The reported human rights violations, including mistreatment, exploitation, and abuse of children, call for urgent and decisive action.

Suhakam asserts that an RCI is the most effective mechanism for ensuring a thorough, impartial, and transparent investigation into these serious allegations. Establishing the RCI will not only hold perpetrators accountable but also address the systemic failures within the regulatory and enforcement agencies tasked with child protection.

Impunity for violations of children’s rights cannot be tolerated. The inquiry must pave the way for justice for the victims and comprehensive reforms to strengthen Malaysia’s child protection framework.

The GISBH case exposes significant lapses in oversight and governance, with the alleged abuses reportedly going unnoticed for over 10 years. Suhakam stresses that the inquiry should prioritise identifying institutional weaknesses that allowed such violations to persist unchecked.

There is an urgent need to streamline governance for child protection and alternative care institutions under a unified agency or authority.

The case highlights a fragmented regulatory framework, where different homes fall under various jurisdictions, including State Islamic Religious Councils, the Social Welfare Department, and, in some instances, the Education Ministry. This fragmentation has led to inefficiencies and catastrophic failures in allowing children to fall through the cracks.

Re-examine existing oversight mechanisms

Children’s commissioner Farah Nini Dusuki reiterates that establishing an RCI will not only uncover the root causes of these abuses but also propel necessary legal and institutional reforms to prevent such cases from recurring. It is time to re-examine existing oversight mechanisms and ensure robust protections across all institutions responsible for children’s care and welfare.

Suhakam calls on the government and all relevant authorities to act swiftly in supporting the establishment of the RCI. Such an inquiry will send a powerful message of the government’s commitment to justice, transparency, and the protection of children.

The RCI must provide a platform for victims, their families, and the public to voice their concerns, seek justice, and achieve closure.

Moreover, Suhakam urges all parties involved to fully respect the victims’ rights, particularly the children, throughout the investigative process.

Protecting children from all forms of abuse, exploitation, and neglect is a fundamental obligation under Malaysian law and international human rights standards, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Malaysia is a party.

In reaffirming our commitment to upholding human rights in Malaysia, Suhakam stands ready to assist the RCI in pursuing justice and accountability.

We are dedicated to ensuring that this inquiry not only delivers justice for the victims but also brings about the comprehensive reforms necessary to protect future generations of children from similar exploitation. - Malaysiakini, 11/10/2024

GISBH slapped with 50 SSM compounds, 12 investigation papers sent to A-GC

By Zaf Seraj, Luqman Hakim

February 12, 2026 @ 12:11pm

A total of 50 compounds have been issued to Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holdings Bhd, with 27 compounds still unresolved, up to Feb 1. - NSTP/MOHD ADAM ARININ.

KUALA LUMPUR: A total of 50 compounds have been issued to Global Ikhwan Services and Business Holdings Bhd, with 27 compounds still unresolved, up to Feb 1.

Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Minister Datuk Armizan Mohd Ali said that the offences identified by the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM) include failure to lodge the company's annual returns, failure to prepare Financial Statements, and failure to display the company's name and registration number at the place of business.

"As of Feb 1, SSM has taken enforcement action by issuing 50 compounds against the GISB group of companies, of which 27 remain unpaid," he said in a written parliamentary reply last night.

He also said that SSM had completed its investigation of the 12 main companies of the group and handed it to the Attorney-General's Chambers (A-GC) on Aug 4, 2025.

"The matter is currently pending further instructions from the deputy public prosecutor at the (A-GC)," he said.

Armizan also said that the companies under GISB were still registered under SSM, pending prosecution decisions.

"For now, the registration of GISB companies remains in the SSM records pending a decision and official instructions from the prosecution.

"The government assures that no company will be protected if found to have breached the law, and that any further action, including prosecution or cancellation of registration, will be carried out fully in accordance with the law," he said. - NST, 12/2/2026

 

Judicial Review of the PUBLIC Prosecutor's decision is VITAL to prevent 'abuse of power' - Court says YES to Bar application to review decision that led to Zahid's DNAA?

GREAT NEWS when the Court of Appeal allowed the Malaysian Bar's application for a Judicial Review of the Public Prosecutor's decision that led to the DNAA of Zahid Hamidi. It was a decision to discontinue prosecution of the accused in a criminal trial. 

In Malaysia now, the Attorney General is also the Public Prosecutor - and their POWERS are as stated in the Federal Constitution and also the Criminal Procedure Code, amongst others. 

Federal Constitution - Article 145(3) The Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial. 

Sec. 254 Criminal Procedure Code - Public Prosecutor may decline to prosecute further at any stage 

(1) At any stage of any trial, before the delivery of judgment, the Public Prosecutor may, if he thinks fit, inform the Court that he will not further prosecute the accused upon the charge and thereupon all proceedings on the charge against the accused shall be stayed and the accused shall be discharged of and from the same.

(2) At any stage of any trial before a Sessions Court or a Magistrates Court before the delivery of judgment, the officer conducting the prosecution may, if he thinks fit, inform the Court that he does not propose further to prosecute the accused upon the charge, and thereupon all proceedings on the charge against the accused may be stayed by leave of the Court and, if so stayed, the accused shall be discharged of and from the same.

(3) Such discharge shall not amount to an acquittal unless the Court so directs.

In Zahid Hamidi's case, the decision to discontinue proceedings(that led to the DNAA) was ODD - because it was done after the High Court determined that the Prosecution has successfully proven a PRIMA FACIE case against Zahid > this is the MOST difficult task in a criminal trial - the proving of ALL elements of the CRIME to the satisfaction of the Judge. NOW, this means that Zahid has a final chance during the Defence case, to raise REASONABLE doubt in COURT, that will lead to his ACQUITTAL - and, if he failed to do so, he will be CONVICTED and sentenced. Thus, it was VERY DIFFICULT to avoid conviction.

However, when the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor decides to 'DISCONTINUE' criminal prosecution - the Court/Judge have no choice but to DISCHARGE the accused simply because the Public Prosecutor does not want to continue prosecuting. Malaysian law still does not provide for any other - including the victim or some other to step in and continue prosecuting.

By discontinuing the criminal proceedings, more so after PRIMA FACIE case have been proven, allows for a GUILTY person to walk free and the Court/Judge although knowing that until that stage, the accused is still GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt. In my opinion, if the accused has any evidence or argument for his innocence, it must be presented in COURT and only the JUDGE will decide whether one is GUILTY or NOT.

DANGER - What if the Public Prosecutor is CORRUPT or abused his/her POWER? What if the Public Prosecutor did as Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim or some others wanted? 

NOTE the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor is CHOSEN by the Prime Minister, and who also have the power to remove at any time? No need for REASONS - that is why Public Prosecutors must be INDEPENDENTLY appointed with SECURITY of TENURE..to prevent 'wrongful dismissal' for bad reasons like you went against what the PM wanted.

Too many NOT charging of persons, too many decisions not to prosecute and discontinuation of criminal proceedings 

Like Ministers, decision of the Public Prosecutor must be subjected to JUDICIAL REVIEW to determine whether the decisions were correct???

For JUDICIAL REVIEW of Public Prosecutor's decision - it must be open to all persons - because crime is a public matter - and Malaysians expect those who break the law to be charged and tried...NOT COMPOUNDED or just 'swept under the carpet" 

 

 

M'sian Bar gets leave to challenge AG's decision on Zahid's DNAA

Farah Solhi

Published:  May 7, 2026 10:26 AM

⋅

Updated: 3:37 Pm

 

The Court of Appeal has allowed the Malaysian Bar to pursue a judicial review against a decision by the attorney-general to temporarily discontinue prosecution against Ahmad Zahid Hamidi in 2023.

That was over the deputy prime minister’s 47 corruption charges involving Yayasan Akalbudi funds, where he obtained a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) three years ago.

In a unanimous decision this morning, the panel of three judges led by Faizah Jamaludin said they found the Bar’s judicial review application “appropriate” and not frivolous.

They said the lawyers’ professional body raised arguable issues that warrant a full judicial review and remitted the matter back to the High Court for hearing.

The panel also said the challenge by the Bar was not a collateral attack on the criminal court presiding over the case; instead, it challenged the legality and rationality of the AG’s decision that led to Zahid’s DNAA.

“The criminal court cannot compel the AG in his role as public prosecutor to proceed with the prosecution once he (has) decided to discontinue it (as) such (a) decision remains with his constitutional responsibility under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution.

Palace of Justice in Putrajaya houses the Court of Appeal

“Since the criminal court’s DNAA order was a procedural consequence of the AG’s decision, the appellant is not attacking the criminal court’s order granting a DNAA.

“(But) what it challenges is the executive root of that order, namely the AG’s decision to discontinue the prosecution in respect of the charges against Zahid and to seek a DNAA.

“Therefore, we find that the appellant’s application for judicial review was not a collateral attack on the criminal court’s order of a DNAA in respect of all 47 charges against Zahid.

“We (also) respectfully disagree with the High Court’s refusal of leave, as in our view, the High Court applied an unduly (high) standard at the leave stage and went too far into matters properly reserved for the substantive hearing,” Faizah said, in reading the panel’s judgment.

The panel also made no order to costs. Presiding with Faizah were Lim Hock Leng and Nadzarin Wok Nordin.

Zahid’s DNAA

The Kuala Lumpur High Court, on Sept 4, 2023, granted the prosecution’s application for DNAA on Zahid’s corruption case.

The lead prosecutor, Dusuki Mokhtar, who is the current AG, had laid out 11 reasons for the application, including to allow the prosecution a more comprehensive and complete investigation into Zahid’s case.

Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar

The DNAA was granted while the case was at the defence stage.

Following this, the Bar filed their judicial review application on Dec 4, the same year, in challenging the AG’s decision.

However, they failed to obtain leave to proceed with the judicial review in 2024, resulting in the present appeal before the panel. - Malaysiakini, 7/5/2026

Court grants Malaysian Bar green light to challenge DNAA in Zahid’s Yayasan Akalbudi case

Deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi is seen here at the Palace of Justice, Putrajaya in 2024. — Picture by Shafwan Zaidon

By Ida Lim

Thursday, 07 May 2026 10:17 AM MYT

• The Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that the Malaysian Bar can proceed with its challenge against the AG’s 2023 decision to seek a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) for Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi in his Yayasan Akalbudi trial.
• The court found that Zahid’s DNAA was an “appropriate, rare and exceptional” case for the challenge to proceed, given several factors, including that 99 prosecution witnesses and 15 defence witnesses had already testified.
• The Malaysian Bar’s judicial review will now be heard by the High Court.
• The Malaysian Bar will ask the High Court to defer its decision on Zahid’s acquittal application until the judicial review has been heard.

PUTRAJAYA, May 7 — The Malaysian Bar today won its appeal to begin its court challenge against the Attorney General’s 2023 decision to apply for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) against Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s 47 charges in the Yayasan Akalbudi corruption trial.

Datuk Faizah Jamaludin, who chaired a three-judge panel at the Court of Appeal, said the panel unanimously decided that the Malaysian Bar’s court challenge could proceed to be heard by the High Court.

“Leave is granted to the Appellant to commence judicial review against the Attorney General’s impugned decision. The matter is remitted to the High Court for substantive hearing of the judicial review,” she said, referring to the Malaysian Bar as the appellant.

The other two judges on the panel were Datuk Lim Hock Leng and Datuk Nadzarin Wok Nordin.

The Malaysian Bar had on December 2, 2023 filed its court challenge via a judicial review application, but the High Court on June 27, 2024 decided not to grant leave for the case to be heard.

Lawyer Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, who represented the Malaysian Bar, speaks to reporters at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya, May 7, 2026. — Picture by Yusof Isa

 

Since this is a judicial review case, the Malaysian Bar had to get the court’s leave or court’s permission first in order for the case to be heard.

 

The Malaysian Bar on July 23, 2024 appealed against the High Court’s decision, and this is the appeal it won today.

 

The High Court will now hear the Malaysian Bar’s challenge against the AG’s decision to get a DNAA in Zahid’s case, unless the AG decides to file an appeal on today’s decision.

 

What the Court of Appeal decided 

 

 When reading out excerpts of the court’s judgment today, Faizah noted that the Malaysian Bar’s appeal today involves an issue of constitutional and public importance, specifically on the threshold or the minimum requirement in order to get leave to challenge the AG’s discretion in prosecutions under the Federal Constitution’s Article 145(3).

 

Under Article 145(3), the AG has the power and discretion to “discontinue” any criminal proceedings or to drop prosecutions.

 

Faizah stressed that the Court of Appeal’s decision today is not on the merits of the criminal charges, “does not determine the guilt of or innocence of” anyone, and is also not on the AG’s motives and conduct.

Instead, she said the only question is whether the Malaysian Bar has met the threshold for leave to start its court challenge against the AG’s September 2023 decision to ask for a DNAA in Zahid’s case.

She made it clear that a DNAA is “not a finding of innocence or guilt”, but a “procedural order” that the courts make in criminal proceedings.

Faizah listed five legal issues that the Court of Appeal had examined in coming to its decision today, including whether the Malaysian Bar had fulfilled the test to be able to start its court challenge.

She said the Federal Court’s 2021 decision in the Sundra Rajoo case had clarified that the AG’s prosecutorial discretion under Article 145(3) is wide but is not “absolute or unfettered”, and that it had ruled that the AG’s prosecutorial discretion could be subjected to judicial review in “appropriate, rare and exceptional” situations.

She noted the Federal Court had made it clear that all public powers have legal limits and that the AG’s constitutional status does not mean that the courts could not review his prosecutorial discretion, although a higher standard of scrutiny would apply.

The Court of Appeal today decided that the test to get leave for a judicial review against the AG’s prosecutorial discretion is the same test that applies to other judicial review cases.

This test is whether there is an arguable case that is not frivolous.

But when the judicial review is about how the AG exercised his prosecutorial discretion, the Court of Appeal said the test for getting leave must also be applied with “discipline, caution and restraint” with considerations of four factors.

These four factors are the AG’s constitutional status; the presumption that the AG’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion was legal; the doctrine of separation of powers; and the principle that judicial review over prosecutorial discretion is limited to “appropriate, rare and exceptional” cases.

Faizah said the presumption of legality of the AG’s prosecutorial discretion cannot be an “absolute bar” or completely shut out leave for judicial review, if such a court challenge is supported by identifiable and serious matters.

Unlike the AG’s decision to charge an individual which can be challenged within the court process and trials, she noted that the decision to discontinue or drop a prosecution “may have a final practical effect” and remove it from the courts.

“In such a case, a judicial review may be the only practical means by which the legality or rationality of the AG’s decision-making process can be examined,” she said.

Datuk Faizah Jamaludin, who chaired a three-judge panel at the Court of Appeal, said the panel unanimously decided that the Malaysian Bar’s court challenge could proceed to be heard by the High Court. — Picture by Raymond Manuel

She said the Malaysian Bar’s court challenge is focused on whether the AG’s decision-making process when deciding to discontinue the prosecution against Zahid was legal and rational, including whether relevant or irrelevant factors were considered, and whether the AG’s decision at such a “late stage” in the trial was justified.

She said the Court of Appeal concluded that the Malaysian Bar has crossed the threshold or fulfilled the test to get leave for judicial review of the AG’s prosecutorial discretion, and that the Bar has an arguable case that is not “frivolous”.

“This case is appropriate, rare and exceptional, because several factors converge: the seriousness of the charges, the public interest in corruption prosecutions, the prima facie finding after a maximum evaluation, the calling of the defence, the extent of proceedings already undertaken, including 99 prosecution witnesses over 53 days of trial, and 15 defence witnesses, the timing and number of representations and the practical finality of the discontinuance,” the judge said, referring to Zahid’s Yayasan Akalbudi case.

“Accordingly, this is our findings for issue III, we therefore held the application is not frivolous and discloses serious public law issues that should be heard at the substantive stage,” she said.

Lawyer Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, who represented Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, speaks to reporters at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya, May 7, 2026. — Picture by Yusof Isa

For the fifth and final legal issue, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Malaysian Bar’s judicial review bid is not a “collateral attack” on the criminal courts’ order to grant a DNAA for all 47 charges against Zahid, as the Bar is instead focused on the AG’s decision to seek a DNAA.

Faizah explained that when the AG discontinues a prosecution, the default result would be a DNAA, unless the court decides to acquit the accused person.

This is based on the Criminal Procedure Code’s Section 254.

Citing Section 254, she said the criminal court cannot compel the AG to continue a criminal trial once the AG has decided to discontinue the prosecution, and that means the decision to continue or discontinue the prosecution would still be the AG’s constitutional responsibility under Article 145(3).

In the Yayasan Akalbudi case, she said the High Court in September 2023 had considered the choice of whether to grant a DNAA as sought by the prosecution or an acquittal as sought by Zahid, and that it did not make a finding on whether the AG’s decision to discontinue the prosecution was legal, rational or reasonable.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal concluded that the Malaysian Bar should be given leave to have its court challenge heard.

Zahid’s acquittal application in courts next week  

The Court of Appeal’s decision today is important as it could potentially affect when the High Court decides on Zahid’s separate application for acquittal in the Yayasan Akalbudi case.

Zahid had on January 28 applied to be acquitted and the Attorney General’s Chambers has said it has no objections to this application.

The High Court had on February 24 said it would wait for the Court of Appeal’s decision to prevent the Malaysian Bar’s appeal from becoming academic, but had also later scheduled May 14 (next Thursday) to decide on Zahid’s acquittal application.

Unlike a DNAA which temporarily frees an accused from charges and the same charges can be brought again, an acquittal would mean the prosecution cannot file the same charges in the future.

Lawyer Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, who represented the Malaysian Bar, told reporters that the Bar also has a separate court challenge against the AG’s January 8, 2026 decision to classify Zahid’s Yayasan Akalbudi case as “NFA” (No Further Action).

As for the High Court’s scheduled decision next week on Zahid’s acquittal bid, Ambiga said the Malaysian Bar would ask for the decision to be deferred until the courts hear the Malaysian Bar’s two separate judicial review applications against the AG’s DNAA and NFA decisions: “We will be asking for it to either be adjourned or stayed pending the hearing of our substantive application for judicial review.”

Zahid’s lawyer Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik said the legal team would seek his client’s instructions about next week’s acquittal matter, which he confirmed is scheduled for decision at the High Court: “We will take further instructions on that as well and will discuss among ourselves as to what do on the 14th of May.”

Hisyam said the legal team would study the judgment today in greater detail and move on to the next stage of the judicial review hearing at the High Court.

He noted that the Court of Appeal today did not rule on whether anyone was guilty or not: “In other words, this is only at the leave stage, and what is important is the court emphasises that as far as the leave stage is concerned, the threshold is low, so long as the grounds canvassed are not frivolous or vexatious, leave will be heard.”

When asked if an appeal would be filed against the court’s decision today, Hisyam said this would have to be discussed with the AG: “We will discuss among ourselves, the legal team, we will take further instructions again, and we will also liaise with the Chamber’s of the AG.”

- Malay Mail, 7/5/2026