Bar Malaysia v 1. ) PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA 2. ) AHMAD ZAHID BIN HAMIDI

w-01im-488-07-2024 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 6 May 2026 • W-01(IM)-488-07/2024 • 38 min read
66 cases cited (3 SG, 63 foreign)

Catchwords

Judicial Review; leave threshold; prosecutorial discretion; Article 145(3) Federal Constitution; section 254 Criminal Procedure Code; DNAA; prima facie case; appropriate, rare and exceptional cases.

Judges (3)

Faizah binti Jamaludin Delivered Lim Hock Leng Coram Nadzarin bin Wok Nordin Coram

Counsel (30)

Abhilaash Subramaniam & Co Firm Cheah Teh & Su Firm Chooi & Company Firm Cyrus Das Firm Jabatan Peguam Negara Firm Shahrul Hamidi & Haziq Firm Sreenevasan Firm Steven Thiru Firm Abhilaash Subramaniam Counsel Appellant Ahmad Hanir bin Hambaly @ Arwi Counsel Respondent Ahmad Zaidi Zainal Counsel Respondent Aiman bin Abdul Rahman Counsel Respondent Atiqa Nazihah Azmi Counsel Respondent Dato' Ambiga Sreenevasan Counsel Appellant Edward Lee Counsel Appellant Fatini Athirah Baharin Counsel Respondent Gregory Das Counsel Appellant Guok Ngek Seong Counsel Respondent Gurjeevan Singh Sachdev Counsel Appellant Hamidi bin Mohd Noh Counsel Respondent Hisyam Teh Poh Teik Counsel Respondent Imtiyaz Wizni Aufa Binti Othman Counsel Respondent Karen Cheah Yee Lynn Counsel Appellant Mohd Shahril bin Madisa Counsel Respondent Mukhlis Zambry Counsel Respondent Nur Khairunisa Sabirah binti Abdul Manan Counsel Respondent Nurul Hanan binti Hazri Counsel Respondent S. Sivaneindiren Counsel Appellant Shahrul Fazli bin Kamarulzaman Counsel Respondent Steven Thiru Counsel Appellant

Parties (3)

BAR MALAYSIA Appellant PEGUAM NEGARA MALAYSIA Respondent Ahmad Zahid bin Hamidi Respondent

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Code
s 254(1)
Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
Federal Constitution
Art 145(3)
Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (66)

SG (1)
[1990] SGHC 44
SLR (2)
[1990] 1 SLR(R) 590 [2012] 2 SLR 49
UK (5)
[1944] KB 718 [1982] AC 617 [2000] 2 AC 326 [2001] QB 330 [2009] EWHC 106
MY (58)
[1974] 2 MLJ 152 [1977] 2 MLJ 66 [1979] 1 MLJ 50 [1983] 1 MLJ 68 [1986] 1 CLJ 468 [1986] 2 MLJ 100 [1990] 3 MLJ 211 [1990] 3 MLJ 228 [1991] 2 MLJ 544 [1996] 4 CLJ 597 [1997] 1 AMR 329 [1997] 1 MLJ 1 [1997] 3 MLJ 681 [1997] 3 MLRH 304 [1997] 4 AMR 3938 [1997] 4 AMR 4029 [1997] 4 CLJ 645 [1997] 4 CLJ 740 [1998] 1 MLJ 1 [2001] 5 MLRH 718 [2004] 2 MLJ 119 [2004] 6 CLJ 242 [2005] 6 AMR 203 [2005] 6 MLJ 393 [2006] 1 CLJ 457 [2006] 1 CLJ 927 [2006] 4 AMR 89 [2006] 5 MLJ 60 [2012] 4 CLJ 478 [2012] 4 MLJ 296 [2014] 3 MLJ 114 [2014] 4 CLJ 1 [2014] AMEJ 0242 [2017] 3 AMR 596 [2017] 3 MLRH 183 [2017] 4 CLJ 761 [2017] 9 MLJ 441 [2018] 10 CLJ 48 [2018] 4 AMR 549 [2019] 10 CLJ 660 [2019] 2 MLJ 96 [2019] 3 AMR 625 [2019] 3 MLJ 443 [2019] 4 CLJ 561 [2019] 6 AMR 405 [2019] MLJU 1527 [2020] 3 MLJ 788 [2020] 8 AMR 109 [2021] 1 CLJ 791 [2021] 2 MLJ 787 [2021] 5 AMR 23 [2021] 5 MLJ 209 [2021] 6 CLJ 199 [2022] 4 MLJ 660 [2022] 5 MLJ 639 [2022] 6 AMR 721 [2022] 7 AMR 113 [2022] 8 CLJ 1

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (w-01im-488-07-2024)