The Malaysian Insight

THEE Kuala Lumpur High Court has fixed January 24 to decide whether former deputy prime minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi should enter a defence against the 47 corruption-linked charges in connection with Yayasan Akalbudi.

Judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah set the date today after deputy public prosecutors Raja Rozela Raja Toran, Gan Peng Kun, and Harris Ong Mohd Jeffery Ong, as well as lead defence lawyer Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, wrapped up their submissions.

The trial started on November 18, 2019.

Proceedings were disrupted and physical hearings stopped due to Covid-19 lockdown restrictions.

On March 19, the prosecution closed the case after 53 days during which 99 witnesses testified.

The submissions were heard for a total of 24 days from September 6.

Zahid, 68, faces 12 charges of criminal breach of trust, eight of corruption, and 27 of money laundering involving tens of millions of ringgit belonging to the foundation.

If convicted, the Bagan Datuk MP could be jailed for up to 20 years and fined no less than five times the bribe amount or RM10,000, whichever is higher.

Earlier, Teh had argued that Zahid should be granted immunity for 46 of his charges.

He said Zahid had made two statements to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) on July 2 and 3, 2018 and should be protected under sub-section 30(7) of the MACC Act.

Today, Teh further said that the MACC officer who recorded Zahid’s statements had made a mistake.

He said that it should have been done under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) before arrest or under Section 53 of the MACC Act after arrest.

“In the instant case, the MACC had committed an error when its officer recorded statements from the accused under section 30(3)(b) of the act, which would trigger the immunity provision under Section 30(7).

“No reason was given why the MACC could not rely on Section 112 of the CPC,” he told the court.

Raja Rozela rebutted that section 30 enables the MACC officer to summon the person to come forward and give information.

“Under section 112, it does not provide that obligation on the part of the witness to come forward and provide information,” she said.

Raja Rozela added that the reason section 30(7) was repealed by Parliament on October 1, 2018 was so no accused person could take advantage of the so-called immunity.

“And this would defeat the purpose of the MACC’s investigation in bringing forward the accused person or the suspect to justice,” she said.

The court also set 18 days for hearing in the event that the defence is called.

The dates are March 28 to 30, April 11 to 13, April 26 to 28, May 23 to 26 and June 27 to 30. – December 6, 2021.