← 返回新闻首页

MACC officer retracts police report against Muhyiddin’s lawyer; court decides not to cite for contempt

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 15 — The High Court today decided not to begin contempt of court proceedings against Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigation officer Mazery...

Malay MailIda Lim2026-09-15 19:37查看原文 ↗

The High Court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings against MACC officer Mazery Mohd Zaini after accepting his explanation regarding a police report connected to Muhyiddin's trial.

Muhyiddin's lawyers accused Mazery of inappropriate communication, but he clarified the report was to check for information leaks, leading to its withdrawal and apology.

The trial continues in November, focusing on three charges of power abuse against Muhyiddin involving RM25.3 million in alleged bribes for his party.

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 15 — The High Court today decided not to begin contempt of court proceedings against Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigation officer Mazery Mohd Zaini, as it accepted the officer’s explanations about his MACC colleague’s police report.

Earlier today, former prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s lawyers had accused Mazery of contempt of court, due to his actions that led to the police report.

Muhyiddin’s lawyers had pointed out that Mazery was still testifying as the 29th prosecution witness in Muhyiddin’s trial, and should not have communicated with anyone including the MACC colleague who lodged the police report.

High Court judge Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin this afternoon delivered her decision on whether to start contempt of court proceedings against Mazery.

The judge noted that she had told all prosecution witnesses in this trial to not discuss matters in this trial with anyone, while they remain on the witness stand.

“But just now, his explanation is that he wants to check that there is no information leak from MACC itself. So it can be said that this witness is overly-cautious and I accept his explanation. I think I will not proceed to cite for contempt.

“But Datuk Amer, it’s entirely up to you if you want to take further legal action, I don’t want to comment on that. But for the court, I accept his explanation,” the judge said towards the end of today’s court proceedings, referring to Muhyiddin’s lawyer Datuk Amer Hamzah Arshad.

Mazery had testified yesterday and was supposed to continue testifying today, while the police report was lodged by his MACC colleague last night.

What the police report is about and what happened to it

This morning, Amer highlighted the police report, which he described as a form of “intimidation” against Muhyiddin’s lawyers and an “underhanded tactic” to undermine the trial.

The police report had named Amer as having presented to the court an allegedly classified document, namely Adam Radlan Adam Muhammad’s statement to MACC during investigations.

Amer said however that Muhyiddin’s lawyers did not obtain the document from MACC or through illegal or improper methods, stressing that Muhyiddin’s lawyers had obtained it from Adam Radlan’s lawyers.

Amer said he reserved his rights to take legal action against Mazery, while the latter apologised to Muhyiddin’s lawyers and said he did not intend to tarnish their reputation.

Mazery explained that the police report was lodged to protect MACC’s integrity, as he was worried that Adam Radlan’s statement had been leaked from MACC despite being a classified document.

This afternoon, Mazery returned to the High Court after confirming that there had been no information leaks.

Mazery also confirmed that the police report had been given a “No Further Action” (NFA) status, and a fresh police report had been lodged to withdraw last night’s police report.

“As a result of investigations which I carried out at the headquarters, it was found that there are no information leaks from MACC officers, and I am satisfied that no evidence or documents came from MACC officers,” he told the High Court, saying that last night’s police report had been retracted and has been given “NFA” status.

Mazery also expressed hope that Amer could accept his apology.

What Mazery told Muhyiddin’s lawyer

After Mazery’s update on the withdrawal of the police report, he was cross-examined by Amer.

Mazery said he had yesterday instructed his subordinate to lodge a police report to determine whether Adam Radlan’s statement had been leaked, but confirmed that this subordinate was not present in court yesterday and would not know what happened in court.

Mazery confirmed that he did not make any checks on whether the document had been leaked before the police report was lodged last night, and confirmed that his checks today with another MACC colleague on whether there had been leaks only took between 15 to 20 minutes.

Mazery confimed he did not contact this MACC colleague yesterday, but disagreed he could have done so before the police report was lodged.

While confirming that he had decided to lodge the police report without first carrying out an internal investigation and without clarifying with Muhyiddin’s lawyers, Mazery denied that the police report was a “deliberate plan” by him to prevent Muhyiddin’s lawyers from asking four recalled prosecution witnesses today about Adam Radlan.

Mazery confirmed that only he and his subordinate had received a copy of last night’s police report, and denied leaking it to a news outlet which had this morning published a news report on the police report.

Among other things, Mazery denied that he wanted to suppress facts that are in favour of Muhyiddin in this case, also disagreeing that the police report was lodged and leaked to the media to deter Amer from pursuing issues linked to Adam Radlan.

Later when asked by lead prosecutor Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin to clarify why the initial police report was lodged, Mazery stressed it was purely to check if Adam Radlan’s statement had been leaked by MACC officers.

“So when there is none, I was satisfied that there is none, there is no need to continue with that report, that’s why I made an immediate retraction,” he said, adding that he has no malicious intention and that he had cooperated with both the prosecution and Muhyiddin from the start of investigations until now.

Before the judge delivered her decision on whether to cite Mazery for contempt, Wan Shaharuddin also addressed the police report incident in court.

“As the lead prosecutor in this case, I take responsibility for what had happened today. I myself apologise to Datuk Amer on this incident,” Wan Shaharuddin said, before closing the prosecution’s case in the trial after calling in 29 witnesses over more than 30 days of hearing.

When the trial resumes on November 26 and December 1 to 3, the prosecution and Muhyiddin’s lawyers are expected to present their arguments on whether Muhyiddin will have to enter his defence in this case.

In this trial, Muhyiddin is now facing only three charges of power abuse involving RM25.3 million in alleged bribes for his party, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (from Nepturis Sdn Bhd, Datuk Seri Azman Yusoff, KCJ Engineering Sdn Bhd and Mamfor Sdn Bhd).