Don’t blame the Judiciary and the Judges for what is happening in corruption cases (Zahid Part - 3)

In Part 3 of the discussion on corruption cases, it is essential to emphasize that blaming the judiciary and judges for the withdrawal of charges against individuals like Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi is unwarranted. The primary reason behind this assertion is that the court system operates within the boundaries of the law, and its role is limited in certain aspects of criminal proceedings.
First and foremost, it is crucial to understand that the judiciary cannot act beyond the confines of the law. Courts do not possess the authority to investigate crimes or initiate charges against an accused individual. These prerogatives are vested in the hands of the Prosecution, specifically the Public Prosecutor. The courts' role is to preside over cases, examine evidence, and make determinations based on the law.
When a prosecution decides to withdraw charges against an accused, judges do not have the power to compel the prosecution to continue pursuing the case. This is a fundamental principle of legal practice, and it is based on established legal principles. While the specifics of these principles may be complex, it is essential to recognize that judges are bound by the law and legal procedures.
The primary duty of a court is to hear accusations made against an accused individual and to assess the evidence presented. The court's responsibility is not to declare an accused person as 'innocent.' Instead, its duty is to determine, through a careful examination of the law and the evidence, whether the accused should be considered 'guilty' or 'not guilty.'
In cases where the prosecution wishes to drop or withdraw charges, the judge's options are limited. They can either acquit the accused or grant an order of DNAA, which stands for 'discharge but not amounting to an acquittal.' This legal mechanism provides flexibility in handling cases, especially when the prosecution believes that pursuing the charges is no longer warranted.
It is crucial to recognize that the court's decision to issue a DNAA order is not a declaration of innocence. Instead, it is a legal maneuver that allows for the possibility of re-charging the accused if new incriminating evidence emerges. This can be done for the same offense, and the Double Jeopardy Rule, which prevents a person from being punished twice for the same crime, does not apply in such situations.
As a result, individuals who have been granted a DNAA order continue to have the charges hanging over their heads, much like the metaphorical Damoclean Sword. The possibility of being re-charged remains, and this underscores the importance of the legal process in ensuring fairness and justice.
In conclusion, it is essential to avoid blaming the judiciary and judges for the withdrawal of charges in corruption cases. The court system operates within the framework of the law, and its role is distinct from that of the prosecution. Judges must adhere to legal principles and procedures, and their decisions are based on the evidence and the law presented in court. The issuance of DNAA orders is a legitimate legal mechanism that allows for flexibility in criminal proceedings, and it is not a declaration of innocence. Ultimately, the responsibility for prosecuting and withdrawing charges lies with the prosecution, not the judiciary.
Item Title: Piano Nature
Item URL: elements.envat...
Item ID: SJFSVUC
Author Username: Oasis_Music
Licensee: huyeatewde42 huyeatewde42
Registered Project Name: download
License Date: September 10th, 2023
Item License Code: 352DVU9AEH

[@kueiseong]

thanks for explaining so easy to understand

[@GKganesan]

Thank you ever so much. It is when I hear comments like this I feel that all the hard work of the team has been rewarded.

[@cathychan2814]

I was compelled to see your take in this DNAA fiasco. I wonder, how many Malaysians are even aware of the repercussions and impact of such behaviour from Pendakwaraya. Do Malaysians even care? To sum up...your clip here is insightful and the question at the back only leaves more questions... Thank you sir see you again in the next masterclass.

[@GKganesan]

Thank you for your kind words, Miss Chan

[@johnchristie1550]

Very well said

[@sivarajpillay4887]

Past and present govts have no will to separate the powers of AG. Mere rhetorics.

[@onceyoung]

I like his parting shot on how many have been re-charge on DNAA: I don’t know the answer but my guess is a big NO 😂

[@majangkim]

You're right, but at 70 years of age, one can move along through life without fear or remorse for the alleged crime committed. For those sitting next to this person, one will have extra vigilant on his past alleged crime, but not leaving alone with opportunity to do it again.

[@GKganesan]

Thanks man

[@Persempadanansemula2876]

These all are wasting rakyat money n time for doing a job half way..!! We want the MACC n AGC are reported to parliament committee members..

[@user-hq3fg1wb4q]

The power of AG was dismantle during mathatir era, we have the best jurisdiction system back then until BMF rear it's ugly head,

[@athan7199]

can the unity goverment, reinstall that power...I feel, they should!!

[@Hs5687]

Think Jo Loh’s Chances of Returning has suddenly Spiked 😂🎉❤

[@GKganesan]

Good one!

[@ravindranponniah1522]

A court can interfere if corruption is involved.

[@fightcorruptionandmisusepo5385]

Very funny... some Magistrates like the Lead of DPPs..

[@michaelsteinhemingway727]

How about talking about serving prison terms at home?

[@athan7199]

So, to whom are the public prosecutors accountable to....( they are being paid by tax payer monies)

[@KAPUCIA]

Prima Facie

[@GKganesan]

Thank you for your views

[@ronnieng3348]

A sudden immediately retire, you smell anything?

[@jut8146]

Isn't it that a defendant cannot be 'tried' twice for the same offence, as opposed to being 'punished' twice?

[@GKganesan]

Your view is correct. Do think on this, however. Can a person be punished without being tried?

[@jut8146]

@@GKganesan I'm not a lawyer, but it could be that a person is tried and found not guilty, thus not punished. Double jeopardy prevents him from being tried again and punished, though he would be punished only once.

[@manugohil210]

Why is the prosecutor is dropping and withdrawing charges !!!!

[@GKganesan]

Thank you sir for your views

[@mahandrangovindaraj4720]

சிறந்த விளக்கம் ஐயா

[@GKganesan]

நன்றி ஐயா

[@RamaKrishna-lv1yn]

If Atok Mahathir is not guilty then Tun Zahid Hamidi is also not guilty.

[@jeyasealamkunjan2609]

Then who is the culprit

[@GKganesan]

Thank you for your comments.

[@mohammadtaufek5529]

nak bagi Wak Jahid Tun ?? malu la weii

[@GKganesan]

Thank you for your views En Taufek

[@hussanali1848]

Then BLAME WHOM .

[@GKganesan]

Thank you for your view

[@ARIES-jk2ff]

Blame d re4macy guy to be PMX he dumped re4macy