KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 8 — The High Court today issued a warning against comments made in a sub judice manner about former deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s ongoing criminal trial, after his daughter Datuk Nurulhidayah Ahmad Zahid’s Instagram post was brought to the court’s attention.
This morning just before the trial could proceed, the case’s lead prosecutor Datuk Raja Rozela Raja Toran highlighted that the prosecution has been informed of an Instagram posting under the account name “nurul.zahid” who is believed to be Ahmad Zahid’s daughter.
Showing printed screenshots of the Instagram post to the court, Raja Rozela said there was certain materials inside which the prosecution think is “prejudicial” especially to the prosecution.
Raja Rozela said the Instagram post’s author had made “blatant” lies and accusations in comments about the prosecution and the trial that has been heard over the past two days.
Raja Rozela noted that the author of the Instagram post had attempted to explain Ahmad Zahid’s statements to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in July 2018, and that the Instagram post had made a baseless accusation that was not part of the defence raised by Ahmad Zahid’s own lawyers throughout these two days.
“At the fourth paragraph, Your Lordship will see that the author made a baseless accusation against the public prosecutor when she said ‘due to the prosecution wishing to continue prosecutions on the accused, they had amended Section 30(7) of MACC Act on October 1, 2018’.
“That implies we purposely deleted that, the Section 30(7) just to get at the accused person, which I believe my learned friend never said that. And this comment is baseless and is a blatant accusation and unfair to the prosecution, My Lord,” she said.
Section 30(7) of the MACC Act — which was repealed in October 2018 but was in force in July 2018 when Ahmad Zahid’s statement was recorded — had been raised during the trial on Monday and Tuesday by Ahmad Zahid’s lawyer Hisyam Teh Poh Teik.
Teh had during the trial argued that Section 30(7) — which gives immunity from prosecution over information disclosed truthfully to the MACC — meant that Ahmad Zahid should have immunity from 46 of the 47 charges that he is currently facing. Teh however had not argued that Section 30(7) was revoked to prevent Ahmad Zahid from having immunity, but instead had argued that Ahmad Zahid’s would still have immunity even despite the revocation.
