My Dnaa Charge Under Section 188 Penal Code

---

 



On Nov 7, 2020, during a police search at the residence of former UMANY president Yap Wen Qing, I live-streamed the enforcement process using my mobile phone.
Subsequently, I was arrested and detained due to “obstructing a public servant in discharge of his public functions”.
A week later, I was charged under section 188 of the Penal Code concerning “disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant”.
Notably, according to the deputy public prosecutor, Nurul Sofea Jaysal, all five prosecution witnesses are police officers; but they repeatedly failed to appear in court to testify.
After three years of prolonged proceedings, magistrate Tuan Shahril Anuar made an order of discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA).
Our legal team promptly applied for a new date to be scheduled, enabling me to submit a letter of representation, notice of application or to provide me the opportunity to prove my innocence.
Regrettably, the magistrate upheld the DNAA order based on the same reasons.
I respect the magistrate's decision and I fully comprehend the rationale behind the order. The DNAA is a result of the repeated absence of the prosecution's witnesses and the prolonged delay.
However, this order still falls short of the desired outcome. This charge centres on the people's right to hold the police accountable.
My legal team and I are prepared to face a trial, not only to vindicate myself but also to establish a precedent.
We hope the court will rule that filming police enforcement is not a violation of the law, thereby affirming the people's right to ensure transparency and non-violence in law enforcement.
Zahid’s case vs mine
DNAA is not an acquittal, and the prosecution may reinstate the same charge against me. However, having made all the necessary preparations, I remain fearless. Discussions with my legal team are underway regarding future litigation strategies.
Some have incorrectly compared today's DNAA order in my case to the DNAA verdict in Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi's Yayasan Akalbudi misappropriation of funds case.
This comparison is entirely erroneous.
In that particular case, the Kuala Lumpur High Court decided that the prosecution had successfully proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a prima facie case against Zahid.
Subsequently, Zahid filed multiple representation letters requesting the withdrawal of charges, which led to the prosecution's application for DNAA, ultimately dropping all 47 charges against him.
Meanwhile, in my case, the trial has not commenced, nor is there a prima facie case against me.
Furthermore, I did not submit any representation letters requesting charge withdrawal and the prosecution has not applied for DNAA.
Today's ruling does not change my stance on Zahid's DNAA. My position, along with other members of civil society organisations, remains unwavering - granting DNAA to Zahid for political stability would compromise the integrity of Pakatan Harapan’s anti-corruption commitments.
I express my gratitude to the public and media friends for their solidarity and genuine attention to this matter. I will keep everyone informed of further developments. Thank you. - Mkini
The author is a former UMANY president.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---