The criminal court has no power to issue a declaratory order to nullify Rosmah Mansor’s corruption case linked to the RM1.25 billion solar hybrid energy project for 369 rural schools in Sarawak, the Court of Appeal heard today.
Deputy public prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram submitted today that a criminal court, such as the one at Kuala Lumpur currently presiding over Rosmah’s solar graft trial, is not empowered to issue declarations like those by civil jurisdiction courts.
Sri Ram was referring to Rosmah’s failed bid at the High Court on Sept 24 to nullify her solar project corruption trial, due to alleged invalidity of former federal court judge Sri Ram’s letter of appointment for him to prosecute her case.
The ad hoc DPP’s submission, before the three-person Court of Appeal bench chaired by Hanipah Farikullah, was done during today’s hearing of Rosmah’s appeal to nullify the solar corruption trial against her.
While submitting on the prosecution’s preliminary objection against Rosmah’s appeal, Sri Ram today said that there is no point for the Court of Appeal to hear the appeal if the lower criminal court never even had any jurisdiction in the first place to issue declaratory orders.
The DPP contended that an appellant could only appeal against three types of decisions by a criminal court, namely decisions whether to quash a criminal charge for being groundless, acquit the accused, or convict the person facing criminal charges.
“A criminal court cannot grant declarations; (Rosmah if wishes to do so) has to apply to judicial review (before a civil jurisdiction court) to quash my appointment (as DPP to prosecute her corruption case),” he submitted.
Sri Ram further contended that Rosmah’s appeal should be dismissed as the criminal trial court’s order, to dismiss her application linked to the former federal court judge’s appointment, does not determine the final outcome of her corruption case.
The DPP referred to a recent Court of Appeal ruling in a separate case, which stated that only a trial court’s decision to acquit or convict an accused amounted to a verdict that determines the final rights of parties in a criminal case.
“A (criminal trial court) order regarding an application to disqualify a DPP is not an appellable decision due to a recent Court of Appeal decision which ruled that the final rights of parties in a criminal matter are only determined by order of acquittal or conviction.
“An order for an accused to enter his or her defence against a criminal charge is not an appellable decision,” Sri Ram contended.
Earlier, on Feb 18 this year, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur ordered Rosmah to enter her defence in the solar project corruption case.
In-depth written submissions
Toward the end of proceedings before the Court of Appeal today, Hanipah gave time for both the prosecution and defence teams to file in-depth written submissions on the issue.
The matter was then adjourned for further hearing to a date to be fixed.
Lawyers Akberdin Abdul Kader and Jagjit Singh appeared for Rosmah in the open-court proceedings.
Other members of the Court of Appeal bench were M Gunalan and Hashim Hamzah.
For the current solar graft trial before the High Court, Rosmah, 70, is facing three charges under Section 16(a)(A) of the MACC Act 2009.
On the first charge, she is accused of soliciting RM187.5 million in bribes from Jepak Holdings Sdn Bhd to help secure an Education Ministry project.
The RM1.25 billion project was intended to supply power to 369 rural schools in Sarawak using a combination of solar and diesel energy.
On the second and third charges, she is accused of receiving RM1.5 million and RM5 million in bribes respectively as a reward for securing the project. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.