COMMENT | Umno president and former deputy prime minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s acquittal without even his defence being called on 40 corruption charges came as a shock and appears to indicate that the prosecution case was weak.

Is it indeed the situation? Would the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) dare to have prosecuted a former deputy prime minister and home minister for serious offences without having sufficient grounds?

Was the case that was made out so far so weak that the presiding judge had to rule that there was no prima facie evidence to warrant a trial? If it was so weak, why would the AGC even bother prosecuting the case?

Briefly, Zahid was acquitted of all graft charges in relation to the Foreign Visa System (VLN). Shah Alam High Court judge Mohd Yazid Mustafa ruled last week that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case and its three key witnesses were unreliable...