A Bersatu leader contended that the Kuala Lumpur High Court had rightly made the decision to discharge and acquit party president Muhyiddin Yassin from four abuse of power charges linked to the Jana Wibawa programme.
Acting Kepala Batas Bersatu division chief Khaliq Mehtab Mohd Ishaq said that criminal court judge Muhammad Jamil Hussin’s decision is correct as the four charges are defective due to lack of particulars on the alleged offences.
In a press statement, Khaliq pointed out that the charges also disclosed no offence under the law due to Bersatu being a society duly registered under Section 7 of the Societies Act.
He contended that the party cannot be construed as an ‘associate’ under Section 23 of the MACC Act 2009.
When Jamil granted the acquittal to Muhyiddin on Aug 15, one of the grounds cited was that the charges disclosed no offence under law as they wrongly equated Bersatu as being an alleged associate (the party's name is stated in the charges).
“Under such circumstances, it is unmistakable that no evidence of whatsoever nature as may be tendered by the prosecution could possibly cure or remedy the defectiveness of these impugned charges.
“Accordingly, it would be grossly unfair and plainly unconscionable to require Muhyiddin to go through a trial wherein the prosecution is destined for doom at the very onset,” Khaliq said.
Great adverse impact
The Bersatu leader added that it must be borne in mind that criminal proceedings which have not been initiated in accordance with the law as required by Article 5 of the Federal Constitution would not only have a great adverse impact on the life of an individual concerned but would also lead to unnecessary wastage of government funds.
Khaliq was responding to a news portal article titled 'Muhyiddin’s acquittal deviates from legal norms: lawyers' published on Oct 1.
The article quoted legal experts raising concerns over Perikatan Nasional chairperson Muhyiddin’s acquittal, contending that the verdict may have deviated from established criminal law norms.
These experts, among them former Bar Council president Salim Bashir, referred to the prosecution citing 13 reasons for its appeal, which is set to be heard by the Court of Appeal for two days beginning Feb 28 next year.
“The prosecution claims that the trial judge made wrong findings on law and facts, because he acquitted the respondent (Muhiyiddin) before the prosecution was given the opportunity to prove its assertions on the charges based on documentary and oral evidence of the witnesses,” Salim was quoted as saying.
The article also quoted lawyer Raj Surian as saying that the prosecution argued that it should have been allowed to amend charges against Muhyiddin.
“The prosecution also stated that it should be given an opportunity to amend the charges if need be.
“Additionally, the prosecution is also praying for the charges (against Muhyiddin) to be reinstated,” Raj said.
The article also quoted lawyer A Srimurugan as saying that a court should only issue an order of acquittal after hearing all the evidence.
He clarified that this usually occurs either when the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case or when the defence successfully raises reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s evidence.
Procedural irregularities
Srimurugan said that the court cannot acquit without evaluating the evidence presented.
“What transpired in Muhyiddin’s case is not standard practice.
“Therefore, the prosecution’s argument that the order of acquittal was premature holds merit,” Srimurugan said.
The lawyer also suggested that the court should grant a discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) in cases involving procedural irregularities or defective charges.
“Acquittal is warranted after a thorough assessment of the evidence, while a DNAA is granted based on procedural compliance,” the lawyer commented.
Muhyiddin’s legal team has also recently filed an application for the criminal court to grant him a DNAA over the remaining related money laundering charges.
Financial assets
Money laundering is the offence of disguising financial assets so they can be used without detection of the illegal activity that produced them.
Through money laundering, the monetary proceeds derived from criminal activity are transformed into funds with an apparently legal source.
The four abuse of power charges, framed under Section 23(1) of the MACC Act 2009, accused him of using his position as then prime minister and Bersatu president, for an inducement of RM232.5 million from three companies and an individual, between March 1, 2020, and Aug 20, 2021.
The three companies are Bukhary Equity, Nepturis Sdn Bhd and Mamfor Sdn Bhd, while the individual is Azman Yusoff.
The three money laundering charges were laid out under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Amlatfpuaa) - read with Section 87(1) of the same act.
The 76-year-old is accused of abusing his powers for Bersatu to receive RM125 million of proceeds from illegal activity from Bukhary Equity between Feb 25, 2021, and July 8, 2022.
The charges did not allege that payment was made to Muhyiddin, hence why his personal bank accounts were never frozen.
The money laundering was allegedly committed by receiving money banked into Bersatu’s account. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.