COMMENT | Media reports that the Court of Appeal has dismissed a preliminary objection by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and, in turn, held that the Malaysian Bar’s appeal for leave to challenge the AG’s decision to secure a discharge for Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi from his corruption case will proceed.

The Bar’s argument via lawyer Ambiga Sreenevasan hits on a massive legal and ethical nerve in Malaysia. By calling the decision a “betrayal”, she’s pointing to the sheer amount of work and tax-funded resources that went into the case before it was pulled.

It is very hard not to agree with Ambiga on this point. After all, Zahid was called for defence for his 47 criminal charges involving several crimes, including corruption, when the trial judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah was fully satisfied that the prosecution managed to establish a prima facie case against all 47 criminal charges against Zahid.

Under criminal law, in calling any accused person for a defence, the judge has to undertake a maximum evaluation of all the evidence presented by the prosecution team at the prosecution stage.

Only upon such a maximum evaluation exercise, the judge will...