Prosecution witnesses absent, activist granted DNAA again
After six prosecution witnesses failed to turn up, the Petaling Jaya Magistrate’s Court granted former student activist Wong Yan Ke a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) again over the charge of disobeying a police order to stop recording a raid four years ago.
Wong (above, centre) told Malaysiakini that deputy public prosecutor Asmaa’ Zamri requested the DNAA, which would allow him to be prosecuted again.
After six prosecution witnesses failed to turn up, the Petaling Jaya Magistrate’s Court granted former student activist Wong Yan Ke a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) again over the charge of disobeying a police order to stop recording a raid four years ago.
Wong (above, centre) told Malaysiakini that deputy public prosecutor Asmaa’ Zamri requested the DNAA, which would allow him to be prosecuted again.
The former president of Universiti Malaya Association of New Youth (Umany) said he is considering filing an appeal to seek a full acquittal.
A frustrated Wong said the absence of prosecution witnesses was not a new issue as this had happened before.
“These witnesses are public servants, not ordinary citizens. They should have the time to attend court and are obligated to do so,” he said, adding that there is a sense of “non-urgency” that allows this matter to drag on.
“I want closure so that people can (be allowed to) film the police and to protect their safety,” said the Bersih deputy president.
Previous DNAA
Wong was arrested on Nov 7, 2020, when he used his mobile phone to record police raiding the house of his successor Yap Wen Qing in relation to a probe into a Umany article on the role of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
However, in October 2023, the Magistrate’s Court granted Wong a DNAA after the prosecution failed to present any of its five witnesses.
The Shah Alam High Court later called for the decision to be reviewed and returned the case to the Magistrate's Court for trial.
On May 31 of this year, Wong sought to have the case dismissed, but the magistrate rejected his application.
Initially, the former activist was charged under Section 186 of the Penal Code (obstructing a public officer) but this was later switched to Section 188 (resisting a public servant in the discharge of his duty).
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2024/08/92b327b670930d7a0c8fa4f8efba0f71.jpg)

/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2024/05/9302a93bb9c7884425cf97713bb8a1f4.jpg)
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2023/11/f3dbd3b28fd25255426da96caa340b72.jpg)
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2023/10/815e07ac2dadc16d16f92bfc1503b4de.jpg)
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2023/10/4b34b226f1269a9ba34144b6cf38b7a1.jpg)
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2023/10/f8732931c8d58ed516dc35a6127c9c32.jpg)
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.