KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 6 — Former deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi was “overprosecuted” when the prosecution pressed 47 criminal charges against him and some were “empty shells” that should be dropped, his lawyer told the High Court today.

Zahid’s lawyer Hisyam Teh Poh Teik also claimed that the attorney general, who is also the public prosecutor, had acted unfairly towards his client, highlighting that this was despite the law recognising the public prosecutor as a “minister of justice”.

Among other things, Hisyam had read out an excerpt from page 449 of former attorney general Tan Sri Tommy Thomas’ book My Story: Justice in the Wilderness, where the latter had said that all his decisions to charge Umno leaders such as Zahid as recommended by the MACC following investigations was guided only by the law.

In the excerpt read, Thomas had also said no evidence was manufactured and no prosecution witness was asked to lie, and that the contemporaneous documentation in each of these cases were overwhelming.

Hisyam disagreed that the prosecution against Zahid was motivated by the law or by evidence, arguing that his client had been “unnecessarily” charged.

Noting that just as the law does not allow an accused person to be “overconvicted and underconvicted”, Hisyam stressed that: “Likewise, an accused person cannot be overprosecuted or underprosecuted, it doesn’t speak well of the justice system.”

He then went on to argue that Zahid has been overprosecuted, saying: “In this case, the accused person has been overprosecuted, has been unnecessarily overprosecuted.”

Hisyam then cited several examples of some of the 47 charges which he claimed to actually be “empty shells”, arguing that some of the prosecution’s star witnesses had come to court and “compromised” the prosecution’s case.

He argued that the prosecution should review the evidence in such situations and drop the related charges.

Hisyam noted for example that for all the eight corruption charges against Zahid, that three prosecution witnesses had testified in court that there was “no elements of corruption” and that one witness had even said it is “fitnah” or slander.

“Under these circumstances, the right thing to do is for the prosecution to look at the evidence again and withdraw the charges. That is the right thing to do.

“Sometime last week, we saw in the press that the ex-Felda director was charged with 29 counts of corruption under the MACC Act and all the charges were withdrawn. And one of the reasons is witness compromised evidence. That is the right decision.

“In our case, the key witness for prosecution came to court and said there’s no element of corruption. In spite of the evidence, in spite of the compromised prosecution, the prosecution still wants to proceed,” he said.

Having gone through other examples which Hisyam argued showed that some of the charges were “empty charges” and represented an overprosecution of Zahid, the lawyer said: “With all these instances, we can draw a strong inference that the prosecution is motivated not by law, not by evidence, but by oblique motive.”

Another example given by Hisyam was one of the criminal breach of trust charges that Zahid was facing over his transfer of over RM17.9 million of his charitable organisation Yayasan Akalbudi to law firm Lewis & Co’s client’s trust account.

Looking at the prosecution’s evidence would show that this charge is “nothing but an empty shell”, Hisyam said, adding: “In reality, it’s an overcharge, there is no criminal breach of trust because Yayasan Akalbudi still retains ownership of the money transferred to client’s account in Lewis & Co.”

“With all this we can make a strong inference, that the public prosecutor at the material time was motivated by an oblique motive. CBT — the right thing to do is to look at the evidence and revoke the charge,” he said, arguing that 89th prosecution witness Fairul Rafiq Hamirudin who is an investigating officer in Zahid’s case had conceded there is no criminal breach of trust.

In this trial, Zahid ― who is a former home minister and currently the Umno president ― is facing 47 charges, namely 12 counts of criminal breach of trust in relation to charitable foundation Yayasan Akalbudi’s funds, 27 counts of money laundering, and eight counts of bribery charges.

Today, Hisyam also argued that there was no “full, frank, honest” disclosure by the prosecution of facts favourable to Zahid’s lawyers as would be required by law under Section 51A(1)© of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Hisyam listed down examples of such matters that the prosecution would arguably have found but allegedly did not tell the defence team, such as Zahid having immunity from being prosecuted over the information he had told the MACC in July 2018 under the then-applicable law of Section 30(7) of the MACC Act.

Hisyam indicated the prosecution too did not disclose that witnesses related to Zahid’s money-laundering charges have said the contribution they gave to Yayasan Akalbudi were for “charity”, or that witnesses for the corruption charges against Zahid had said there was no element of corruption, or that there were cheques in relation to the criminal breach of trust that had Zahid’s signature stamped on instead of signed.

Hisyam argued that the consequence of the alleged omission is “miscarriage of justice” and that rule of law has not been upheld, also claiming that this has resulted in prejudice to Zahid as the accused.

The trial before High Court judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah resumes tomorrow morning.

Previously, court proceedings involving Zahid had to be deferred after he had a fall in late August and was said to have suffered pain. The trial today had proceeded smoothly with Zahid sitting in the courtroom.

Since Zahid’s trial began in late November 2019, the prosecution had called in 99 prosecution witnesses to testify over 53 days.

Today is the first of several days of oral submissions by both Zahid’s lawyers and the prosecution, with both sides to present their final arguments before the High Court decides whether the prosecution has made out its prima facie case for Zahid to answer and explain to defend himself.

Such a decision at the end of the prosecution case would either see Zahid being called to enter his defence if there is a prima facie case, or being freed of the charges if the court finds that a prima facie case has not been established.