From Charges to NFA: The Long Road Of Zahid Hamidi’s Yayasan Akalbudi Case
A high profile case that stretched for years ended with a simple “No Further Action”.
Subscribe to our FREE Newsletter, or Telegram and WhatsApp channels for the latest stories and updates.
Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi is one of Malaysia’s most senior politicians. Born in 1953 in Bagan Datuk, Perak, he has held high-level roles including Deputy Prime Minister, Home Minister and Defence Minister during his long political career.
Zahid became President of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) in 2018 after the party’s historic defeat in the 14th General Election, and he currently serves again as Deputy Prime Minister in the unity government formed under Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
His career has been marked by extensive public service, but also by prolonged legal battles linked to allegations of financial wrongdoing in connection with a foundation he founded called Yayasan Akalbudi.
This is the story of how those allegations evolved into one of Malaysia’s most closely watched court dramas, and how it ended.
2018: Charges Filed After Political Upheaval
The controversy began in October 2018, just months after Zahid took over the leadership of UMNO following its first electoral defeat in history. On 19 October 2018, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) charged Zahid with a series of offences related to funds from the Yayasan Akalbudi foundation, which he had established with supposed charitable aims.
Initially, he faced 10 counts of criminal breach of trust (CBT) and eight counts of corruption, with later additions bringing the total to 47 charges, including criminal breach of trust, corruption and money laundering based on alleged misuse of millions of ringgit in Yayasan Akalbudi funds.
The prosecution alleged that funds meant for charitable activities were diverted for personal and political benefit, and Zahid denied those claims. Court filings, witness testimony and documents referenced in later reports suggested payments for personal expenses and business transactions that were not within the foundation’s explicit mission.
2019–2021: Trial Begins and Evidence Heard
Zahid’s trial over these 47 counts began in the Kuala Lumpur High Court in November 2019. Over months, prosecution and defence presented evidence and witnesses. The prosecution’s case pointed to alleged improper use of foundation funds, while the defence maintained that many of these transactions were legitimate investments or charitable in nature.
However, the process was drawn out, with numerous delays and procedural issues, including health-related postponements and rescheduling. By March 2021, prosecutors had closed their case after calling dozens of witnesses.
2022: Court Orders Zahid to Enter Defence
In January 2022, after hearing the prosecution’s evidence, the High Court determined there was a prima facie case and ordered Zahid to enter his defence. This meant the trial was poised to move into testimony from Zahid and his legal team.
Throughout this period, Zahid continued to deny the allegations, asserting his actions were lawful and that the foundation’s funds had been used appropriately.
4 September 2023: Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal (DNAA)
In a dramatic turn, on 4 September 2023, the prosecution withdrew from continuing the trial, and the court granted Zahid a Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal (DNAA) on all 47 charges.
A DNAA means that while Zahid was released from the trial at that time, prosecutors could potentially re-charge him later if new evidence emerged. The prosecution said the decision was made to allow further investigations to be conducted, though the move triggered public debate about legal transparency and anti-corruption enforcement.
2023–2025: Further Investigation
Following the DNAA, the MACC carried out extended investigations into the sources, use and handling of funds tied to Yayasan Akalbudi.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) reviewed these expanded findings alongside representations by Zahid’s defence.
8 January 2026: No Further Action (NFA) Decision
According to Malay Mail, on 8 January 2026, the AGC announced that it would take No Further Action (NFA) on the entire set of 47 charges involving Yayasan Akalbudi.
In a statement, the AGC said that after reassessing all materials, new evidence and further investigation results, the available evidence was now insufficient to sustain a prosecution. They also cited considerations of justice, prosecutorial integrity and legal certainty.
This decision effectively closes the case permanently, removing the possibility of re-charging Zahid on these specific allegations.
Following the announcement, Zahid publicly expressed relief and gratitude, saying that “truth prevails” after the long process.
DAP Demands Explanation From AG on Zahid’s NFA
Through a statement on Facebook, Democratic Action Party (DAP) Legal Bureau chairman Ramkarpal Singh called on the AGC to clearly explain its decision to take no further action on the 47 criminal charges previously faced by Zahid.
Ramkarpal said the NFA decision has failed to inspire public confidence and raised serious concerns about transparency and decision-making, especially since the High Court had found a prima facie case against Zahid in 2023 and ordered him to enter his defence.
He questioned whether the AGC had properly reconsidered this finding, stressing that it was based on the prosecution’s own evidence after a trial that began in 2019 and lasted nearly four years.
He noted that prosecutors themselves sought a DNAA in September 2023 to allow further investigations by the MACC, which the court granted. Given this background, Ramkarpal said the AGC must now explain why it considers the prima facie finding no longer relevant. Without a transparent explanation, he warned, public trust in the AGC would be further eroded and the decision could be seen as improper.
According to a report by Free Malaysia Today, Lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan echoed these concerns, questioning how evidence previously deemed sufficient to justify a full trial and years of public expenditure could now be considered insufficient to proceed. He said this contradiction undermines confidence in the justice system and leaves the public wondering what has materially changed.
Rajesh also warned that the lack of clarity could fuel perceptions that legal processes are not fully pursued when influential political figures are involved.
Share your thoughts with us via TRP’s Facebook, X, Instagram, or Threads.
