PUTRAJAYA: Former prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin today failed in his bid to restore his discharge and acquittal (DAA) order on four abuse of power charges linked to the Jana Wibawa programme during his tenure.
A five-judge Court of Appeal (CoA) panel led by Datuk Azizah Nawawi dismissed the 77-year-old Pagoh member of parliament's application for a review.
"We find that the earlier panel (CoA) had the requisite jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the respondent's (prosecution) appeal (to reinstate the four charges against Muhyiddin).
"This application for a review is dismissed," she said.
Also on the panel were Datuk Ruzima Ghazali, Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, Datuk Azman Abdullah and Datuk Azhahari Kamal Ramli.
The decision affirmed the decision of an earlier CoA three-judge panel led by Datuk Hadhariah Syed Ismail, which allowed the prosecution's appeal against the Kuala Lumpur High Court's DAA order on Muhyiddin.
Hadhariah had said judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin erred in law when he ruled that the four charges did not disclose any offence known to law and that it was clear and unambiguous and ordered the case to be remitted to the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.
In today's proceedings, Azizah said Muhyiddin's grounds in his application for review were premised on the issue of lack of jurisdiction and that the previous CoA panel had acted in excess of its statutory conferred jurisdiction.
She said Muhyiddin, as the applicant, had submitted that the decision of the High Court judge in invoking the inherent jurisdiction to quash or strike out the charges preferred against him does not fall within paragraph 50(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act (CJA) 1964 as the judge was not exercising its revisionary jurisdiction regarding any criminal matter decided by the Sessions Court.
"We are of the considered opinion such an interpretation will lead to an absurdity.
"If the applicant is correct that there can be no appeal against the decision of the judge in dismissing the charges and acquitted the applicant, it would simply mean that the High Court has an unlimited jurisdiction to quash a criminal charge and acquit an accused person without trial.
" Further, it would lead to an absurd situation where the prosecution is left without any remedy as the propriety and correctness of the decision of the High Court judge can never be challenged."
She said paragraph 50(1) (b) of the CJA cannot be read in isolation but must be read harmoniously with sections 31 and subsection 35(1) of the CJA and Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure code.
"When read harmoniously, the jurisdiction to hear appeals from any decision made by the High Court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction in respect of any criminal matter is not limited to matters decided by the Sessions Court, but also includes any matters where the High Court exercises its revisionary jurisdiction.
"We are of the considered opinion that the respondent's (prosecution) appeal against the decision of the High Court judge falls within the ambit of paragraph 50(1)(b) of the CJA," she said.
The prosecution was represented by deputy public prosecutors Datuk Dusuki Mokhtar, Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin and Ahmad Akram Gharib.
The defence team was led by lawyer Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik.
Sept 27 was set for Muhyiddin's mention at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court.
Muhyiddin had sought a review of a previous panel's decision that unanimously granted the prosecution's application to set aside the Kuala Lumpur High Court's order to acquit and release him in August last year