[1] On Monday, the Kuala Lumpur High Court acquitted Muhyiddin Yassin of four charges linked to Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd, after the prosecution applied for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA). The judge, noting that the prosecution offered no reason for the DNAA application — only that it did not wish to proceed — ordered Muhyiddin to be discharged and acquitted.¹

[2] The AGC has since tried to explain itself, arguing that a prosecutor’s duty is not simply to press ahead with any case regardless of circumstance, but to proceed only with charges resting on a sufficient evidentiary basis that can be sustained in court.² Fair enough, as a principle. But the AGC also denied that the four charges were without basis. They cannot have it both ways. Either the evidence was insufficient, in which case they should explain why they went ahead with the charges in the first place, or if the evidence was sound, why the charges were dropped. Asserting both at once is not an explanation; it is evasion dressed up as prosecutorial prudence.

[3] One is left to wonder whether the AGC is incompetent or simply dancing to the drumbeat of its political masters, turning the prosecutorial tap on or off as political expediency demands. Either way, it doesn’t speak well of the AGC or the government. Separating the office of the public prosecutor from that of the AG has long been touted as the fix. After this, one has to wonder if it would fix anything.

[4] This kind of sudden about-turn happens with some regularity. Zahid Hamidi’s case is the starkest example: in January 2022 the High Court found a prima facie case on all 47 charges.³ In September 2023, mid-defence, the prosecution suddenly sought a DNAA, which the court granted.⁴ By January 2026, the AGC closed the file for good, citing insufficient evidence, never addressing the prima facie finding its own prosecutors had secured.⁵

[5] All these about turns have left stunned citizens with tons of questions. Is the AGC chronically incapable of building prosecutable cases against the powerful? Why are charges levelled and then suddenly withdrawn? Has our justice system been taken hostage by our politicians? Does political expediency trump justice? Why are charges brought mostly against opposition figures? Is it mere coincidence or is someone pulling the strings from behind?

[6] The AGC said it had dropped the four charges against Muhyiddin in order to strengthen the case for the remaining charges.⁶ When the charges against Zahid were dropped, the AGC issued a statement suggesting it was only a temporary measure until a more thorough and complete investigation was completed.⁷ Let’s see where all this leads this time. Will Muhyiddin and Bersatu suddenly have a change of heart and declare support for Anwar as Zahid did? If it turns out that way, it will be the height of cynicism and hypocrisy, and the end of the rule of law in Malaysia.

[7] There’s irony here too. The Malay Mail reported that Muhyiddin himself called Zahid’s 2023 DNAA a threat that would “shake the confidence of investors in our justice system.”⁸ No doubt his faith in the legal system has now been fully restored thanks to this latest discharge.

[8] But the double standard runs deeper than one man’s convenient memory. Lim Guan Eng, a member of Anwar’s own coalition, has been on trial since 2020 over the Penang undersea tunnel project — a case that, the court heard in May, initial MACC investigators found insufficient evidence to bring in the first place.⁹ Five years on, it grinds forward while the cases against Zahid and Muhyiddin were discontinued. It looks like which side of the aisle you sit on doesn’t matter as much as how useful you are in the scheme of things at any given time. So far, the DAP has not said anything about the apparent contradiction.

[9] Every time I start to believe that Anwar is really getting serious about fighting corruption and upholding the law, something happens to dash my hopes — a high profile case allowed to fade into the background, allegations against a crony ignored, another DNAA offered without credible explanation. It’s all too convenient. How does one sustain faith in a prime minister whose administration seems to have so little respect for the rule of law and the justice system.

[10] Some argue that Anwar has to make compromises for the sake of political and economic stability, that he needs more time to implement reforms. But if, in the process, our justice system is discredited and diminished, what’s the point of it all? What future can there be for Malaysia without a credible justice system?

[Dennis Ignatius | Kuala Lumpur | 17 September 2026]

Sources

1. Malay Mail, “Muhyiddin relieved after acquittal on four charges, hopes to be freed from three remaining charges,” Sept 15, 2026; Free Malaysia Today, “Muhyiddin acquitted of 4 Bukhary Equity charges,” FMT, 15 Sept 2026.
2. Malaysiakini, “AGC says four charges against Muhyiddin dropped to save Jana Wibawa prosecution,” Sept 16, 2026.
3. Yahoo News Malaysia / Malaysiakini, “Zahid ordered to answer 47 charges in Yayasan Akalbudi corruption case,” Jan 2022.
4. The Borneo Post, “Zahid gets discharge not amounting to acquittal in Yayasan Akalbudi trial,” Sept 4, 2023.
5. Malay Mail, “AGC drops Zahid’s Yayasan Akalbudi graft charges for good, says No Further Action will be taken,” Jan 8, 2026; Malay Mail, “Ramkarpal calls on AGC to explain NFA decision in Zahid’s Yayasan Akalbudi case,” Jan 9, 2026.
6. Malaysiakini, “AGC says four charges against Muhyiddin dropped to save Jana Wibawa prosecution,” Sept 16, 2026. (Same article as note 2.)
7. Malaysiakini, “AG: Perbicaraan Zahid dihenti sementara siasatan menyeluruh dibuat,” 08 Sept 2023.
8. Malay Mail, “Muhyiddin blames Zahid’s DNAA on Anwar’s bid to stay in power,” Sept 5, 2023.
9. The Edge Malaysia, “Guan Eng’s Penang Undersea Tunnel corruption trial starts today,” July 13, 2026; Malay Mail, “MACC officer rejects bias claim in Lim Guan Eng undersea tunnel probe,” Aug 3, 2026; The Vibes, “Penang tunnel scandal: Early probe found insufficient evidence to charge Guan Eng,” May 14, 2026.