Friday 29 Mar 2024
By
main news image

KUALA LUMPUR (Dec 6): The High Court has on Monday fixed Jan 24 to deliver its decision on whether former deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi will be ordered to enter his defence, or be acquitted of all 47 counts of his criminal breach trust (CBT), graft and money laundering charges.

Justice Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah fixed the date after finishing hearing the submissions from the defence and prosecution with regards to the Umno president's 12 charges for CBT, eight for corruption and 27 for money laundering — involving tens of millions of ringgit belonging to Yayasan Akalbudi, a foundation he leads.

The submissions at the end of the prosecution's case began sometime in September, and took 24 days before its completion on Monday (Dec 6). Initially, the hearing had been fixed until Wednesday (Dec 8).

Justice Sequerah, although indicating a decision had not been made, has fixed 18 days beginning March 28, 2022 should the court order the former deputy prime minister to enter his defence.

“This is to ensure the dates are being blocked,” the trial judge said.

A total of 99 prosecution witnesses had testified in the trial that began on Nov 18, 2019, with the prosecution's opening statement by Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Datuk Raja Rozela Raja Toran, who is also the Deputy Head II of the Prosecution Division at the Attorney-General's Chambers,

Earlier, Justice Sequerah heard senior lawyer Hisyam Teh Poh Teik's submissions on the wrongful procedure the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had recorded his client's recorded statement and that Ahmad Zahid should have been granted immunity when giving the statement.

MACC allowed to record statement under its own Act

Raja Rozela in her reply said the MACC investigating officers are empowered to use Section 30(3) of the MACC Act in the performance of their duties.

She said that it is not necessary for the statements to be recorded under Section 112 of the Penal Code, as the MACC officers could use provisions under their own Act.

“If the MACC cannot use provisions within their own Act, then it defeats the purpose of having the legislation," she said, adding that the court did not have the power to grant immunity to the accused.

“The MACC officers did not commit any error in law in utilising Section 30(3) in recording his statement," she argued.

That section stipulates that a person to whom an order has been given under paragraph (1)(a) of the section shall:

  1. attend in accordance with the terms of the order to be examined, and shall continue to attend from day to day where so directed until the examination is completed, and
  2. during such examination, disclose all information which is within his knowledge, or which is available to him, in respect of the matter in relation to which he is being examined, and answer any question put to him truthfully and to the best of his knowledge and belief, and shall not refuse to answer any question on the ground that it tends to incriminate him or his spouse.

Raja Rozela also refuted the defence's contention that Ahmad Zahid did not have dominion over Yayasan Akalbudi's accounts.

This is because Mejar Mazlina Mazlan, the executive secretary of the foundation, only holds the cheques but the directive to use or issue the cheques for payment came from the accused (Ahmad Zahid) himself, said the DPP.

“There are two clear instances as testified by the witnesses that the accused (Ahmad Zahid) had asked Mazlina to prepare the cheques. The defence's contention that Mazlina had control and possession of the cheques does not hold water [as she does not have control of the account],” she added.

Furthermore, Raja Rozela also said lawyer B Muralidharan from Lewis & Co which holds the client's account had also testified and verified that the money was set aside for a wrong purpose.

“When part of the money was used to pay RM8.6 million to acquire a stake in Ri-yaz's Asset Sdn Bhd shares to acquire a stake in a hotel in Bali for his daughter Datuk Nurul Hidayah Ahmad Zahid to observe investment on behalf of the foundation, [that] is not for the purpose the foundation was set up.

“This amounts to criminal breach of trust and we say the prosecution had successfully proven a prima facie case for the accused to be called to enter into his defence,” she said.

If donations why receipts not issued

DPP Gan Peng Kun also questioned why receipts were not issued for the sums paid into the foundation's accounts, if the monies were indeed donations.

Gan cited the case of Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, where the businessman implicated had produced a receipt to prove he had made a donation to Umno, but in this case there were none.

“This case can be distinguished clearly from the Tengku Adnan case. Furthermore, in the Court of Appeal dissenting judgement in that case, the court has been asked to look at the overall evidence and not to pick and choose at only certain portions of the evidence presented.

“The prosecution says it again that we had proven a prima facie case against the accused, for his defence to be called," said Gan.

To recap, Aset Kayamas Sdn Bhd managing director Tan Sri Chai Kin Kong had testified in the graft trial of Tengku Adnan — who is also MP for Putrajaya and former Federal Territories minister — that he had received a receipt in exchange for a political donation of RM2 million to Tadmansori Holdings Sdn Bhd, which is controlled by the politician.

Meanwhile, on the issue of money laundering charges, DPP Mohd Harris Ong Mohd Jeffery Ong said the court had heard evidence that all transactions involved the firm Lewis & Co involving some 92 cheques to a sum of RM76 million, which were derived from unlawful activities and encompasses money laundering.

He added that the evidence and the role of Muralidharan is very important, as it was shown that the foundation was set up for charitable and religious purposes, but the court had seen how these funds had been manipulated from its original purpose to benefit the accused.

“The monies are being used to purchase bungalows and Ri-yaz shares, which is not the main purpose [of the foundation],” he added.

During the prosecution's submissions, Raja Rozela had asked what Nurul Hidayah's intention of acquiring a stake in a boutique Bali hotel had to do with the welfare of helping the poor and destitute.

In the end, despite the initial payment, Nurul Hidayah later withdrew her interests in acquiring the property.

Edited ByLam Jian Wyn & Surin Murugiah
      Print
      Text Size
      Share