Puad: Where were anti-DNAA voices when Guan Eng's case dropped?

Summary

• Umno supreme council member Puad Zarkashi accuses those opposing Najib Abdul Razak’s recent discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) of double standards.

• He questions why there was no similar outcry when charges against Lim Guan Eng were dropped by former attorney-general Tommy Thomas in 2018.

Umno supreme council member Puad Zarkashi accused those opposing the recent High Court decision to grant Najib Abdul Razak a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) of double standards.

In a statement today, he implied that critics of the former prime minister’s DNAA were enemies of Umno who wanted to see the party remain in dire straits.

“Those who oppose the DNAA are, in fact, anti-Najib. They are afraid that if he is acquitted, Umno-BN will rise again.

“They were quiet when those opposed to Umno were given a DNAA. They didn’t say a word when (former attorney-general) Tommy Thomas dropped all charges against (DAP MP) Lim Guan Eng,” Puad said.

In August 2018, Thomas, who was appointed after Pakatan Harapan’s general election victory in May the same year, cited potential conflicts of interest and recused himself from Lim’s case.

Two years prior, as then Penang chief minister and DAP secretary-general, Lim was slapped with two charges of corruption, alongside businessperson Phang Li Koon, who was accused of abetment.

Lim was accused of seeking gratification over the conversion of state land from agriculture to residential, and for the purchase of a bungalow at below market value.

Penang High Court judge Hadhariah Syed Ismail granted the duo full acquittals in September 2018, despite the prosecution’s application for a DNAA. The judge said the case had been pending since March of that year, through no fault of the court.

‘Professionalism’ at the AGC

Meanwhile, Puad zeroed in on the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC)’s explanation that it “had no other choice” but to await the conclusion of Najib’s 1MDB and first SRC International trials before proceeding with the second SRC International case, due to overlapping documents.

“Does this suggest that the charges against Najib overlap? That he was slapped with multiple charges - SRC 1.0 and SRC 2.0 - just to ensure he’s prosecuted?

“In truth, the RM27 million in the SRC 2.0 case is part of the RM42 million in SRC 1.0. Why weren’t the charges combined from the start?” he asked.

Puad acknowledged there is another camp criticising the AGC’s conduct from a legal and procedural standpoint, particularly the delay in prosecuting Najib.

“Why six years? Why press charges if you weren’t ready? This isn’t just about postponements - it’s about governance and professionalism at the AGC,” he said.

He also cited concerns raised by legal practitioners over alleged “selective delay”, which they said violates Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution - the right to a fair and expeditious trial.

“Was Najib made a victim just because he’s a VVIP, as alleged by Shafee Abdullah?” Puad asked, referring to Najib’s lead defence counsel.

Yesterday, Shafee said he believed Najib would have been granted a DNAA as early as two years into the SRC trial, which began in 2019, if the former Umno president was just an ordinary person.

Burden to be a VIP now, Shafee says over Najib's DNAA

Why charge Najib if not ready, Puad questions AGC's credibility

We had 'no other choice', AGC says over Najib’s DNAA

Rafizi demands Najib DNAA explanation, confirmation of quick refile

DNAA: Najib returns to prison, but still 'very happy'

Najib gets DNAA in SRC money laundering case