Ahmad Zahid has no right to claim immunity from prosecution - DPP

Lead prosecutor Datuk Raja Rozela Raja Toran said the accused's claim for immunity could not be heard by the court as it has no jurisdiction to strike out charges on grounds of immunity.

She submitted that the defence had relied on Section 30 (7) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009 to claim for immunity.

However, she said the section did not provide for immunity but rather an exemption from being prosecuted at the discretion of the public prosecutor to certain persons who assisted in the investigation.

"The public prosecutor has taken the position that the accused is not entitled to immunity. In fact, he does not even have the right to claim immunity under Section 30(7).

"Section 30(7), when read in the context of the whole legislation, is enacted with the objective to encourage witnesses to cooperate in disclosing information and documents to assist the MACC in its investigation.

"This provision is applicable only to persons who disclose information or document where such information or document might otherwise expose that person to criminal or civil action or claim," she said in a submission to rebut the defence's argument on immunity before Justice Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah.

Previously, lead counsel Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, who represented Ahmad Zahid, submitted to the court that Ahmad Zahid had made two statements on July 2 and 3, 2018, and said by making the disclosure through the two statements, the UMNO president should have immunity from prosecution under Section 30(7).

Raja Rozela argued that the defence was under a mistaken belief that the prosecution's case was tried on those two statements.

"On the contrary, the prosecution relied on the evidence of 99 witnesses, the majority were civilians who have had their statements recorded by MACC. Neither the public prosecutor nor the MACC did anything to encourage the accused to believe that he will be given immunity.

"Section 30(7) did not contain the word immunity. If Parliament had intended for Section 30(7) to provide for immunity, it would have explicitly said so," she said.

The prosecutor further submitted that the MACC has powers under Section 30(7) to call anyone who can assist in investigations to provide information including those who have yet to be charged in court as part of the investigation process.

"If the MACC records statements from witnesses and everyone is protected, everyone is untouchable, what is the purpose of the investigation then? Where does that leave MACC? It would be absurd to say that Ahmad Zahid should not be prosecuted simply because he had provided information to the MACC," she said.

Ahmad Zahid, 68, is facing 47 charges - 12 for CBT, eight for corruption and 27 for money laundering - involving tens of millions of ringgit belonging to YAB.

The prosecution will continue its submissions on Oct 4.