The Malaysian Bar wishes to make some observations on the legal issues surrounding the reports that Riza Aziz, stepson of former Prime Minister, Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Razak, has been granted a discharge not amounting to acquittal — subject to terms and conditions.1
It is the Attorney General that acts qua the role of the Public Prosecutor by virtue of Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution, and this power is executed by the Solicitor General, and Deputy Public Prosecutors (“DPPs”) in criminal trials by virtue of section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”). These provisions give the Public Prosecutor the ultimate discretion to determine, inter alia, the direction of criminal proceedings.
In the present case concerning Riza Aziz, the charges against, and the process that set this chain of events in motion, from the first representation made by Riza Aziz’s lawyers until the agreement was reached, have been set out by the current Attorney General / Public Prosecutor, YBhg Tan Sri Idrus Harun, through his media release.2 Prima facie, these events seem to be in consonance with the law, as section 92 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (“AMLA”) allows for offences to be compounded by authorities with the consent of the Public Prosecutor.
The decision to apply for an order of discharge not amounting to an acquittal (“DNAA”) lies with the Attorney General / Public Prosecutor who has the power to decline to prosecute further at any stage of the trial under section 254 of the CPC. This power exercisable by the Attorney General / Public Prosecutor, is similar to the power to stay proceedings in English Courts, known as the power to enter a nolle prosequi.3 Such an order directs the discharge of an accused person without acquitting him.
As was held in the long-established case of Teh Cheng Poh v PP, “There are many factors which a prosecuting authority may properly take into account in exercising its discretion … The existence of those factors to which the prosecuting authority may properly have regard and the relative weight to be attached to each of them may vary enormously between one case and another. … ”4
The factors that ought to be taken into account must be dictated by wisdom, relevant consideration and driven by facts and public interest.
Therefore, it can be said that the case concerning Riza Aziz is still very much in its early stages of settlement, as he is still expected to fulfil all the agreed terms and conditions. In the event of his failure to do so, he may be re-charged and prosecuted for the same offences.
18 May 2020
1 “Prosecution asks for discharge not amounting to acquittal on Riza Aziz in 1MDB money laundering case”, The Edge Markets, 14 May 2020; “Riza Aziz granted discharge not amounting to acquittal for money laundering”, Malaysiakini, 14 May 2020.
2 “MEDIA RELEASE: PP v RIZA SHAHRIZ BIN ABDUL AZIZ”, Attorney-General’s Chambers, Malaysia, 17 May 2020.
3 PP v Poh Choo Ching (1981) 1 MLJ 86.
4 Teh Cheng Poh v PP  1 MLJ 50 at 56.