Tebrau MP seeks answers over AGC’s withdrawal of appeal in Rosmah case

Jimmy Puah says the argument that ‘witnesses have died or cannot be traced’ has no direct relevance to the prosecution’s ability to proceed with the appeal.

PKR MP Jimmy Puah said the AGC’s decision to not proceed with the appeal against Rosmah Mansor’s acquittal raises questions about the transparency and integrity of the justice system. (Facebook pic)

PETALING JAYA:

 Tebrau MP Jimmy Puah has urged the Attorney-General’s Chambers to further clarify its decision to drop the appeal against Rosmah Mansor’s acquittal on money laundering and terrorism financing-related charges.

Puah, a lawyer by training, said the decision raises questions about the transparency and integrity of the justice system, especially when it involves high-profile individuals.

“Although the attorney-general has discretionary powers under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution, such decisions must still be explained openly and comprehensively to maintain public confidence in our nation’s institutions of justice.

“I hope the AG will provide a more complete explanation of the basis and considerations behind this decision, as transparency is essential to public trust and the rule of law,” he said in a statement.

Earlier today, the AGC cited “no realistic prospect of success” as a reason for withdrawing its appeal against Rosmah’s acquittal after a review of High Court judge K Muniandy’s grounds of judgment.

It said among the factors taken into account is that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, which is required in a court trial, as some important witnesses have died.

The AGC also maintained that all key aspects of the case, including factual and legal issues, have been thoroughly examined.

Puah said that one of the reasons given, that key witnesses had died or could not be located, is untenable and inconsistent with fundamental legal principles.

“In appellate proceedings, the Court of Appeal does not reassess facts or call new witnesses; it merely examines whether the lower court had applied the law correctly.

“All evidence and testimony have already been recorded in the High Court, so the unavailability of witnesses should not form the basis for withdrawing the appeal,” he said.

He acknowledged that in “very rare or truly exceptional circumstances”, an appellate court may call additional witnesses or admit fresh evidence.

“However, such situations are exceedingly uncommon, and it is clear that this case does not meet those criteria.

“Therefore, the argument that witnesses have died or cannot be traced has no direct relevance to the prosecution’s ability to proceed with the appeal,” he said. - FMT