Prosecution lists 24 grounds why Appeals Court erred in acquitting Isa Samad

The Star

6 hours ago

PUTRAJAYA: The prosecution has listed 24 grounds in its petition of appeal on why the Court of Appeal erred in acquitting former Felda chairman Tan Sri Mohd Isa Abdul Samad of nine corruption charges.
In the petition filed at the Federal Court on June 26, the prosecution is seeking to reinstate the High Court's 2012 decision, which found Mohd Isa guilty and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment and a fine of RM15.45mil, in default 18 years in prison.
A check on the court's e-filing system showed that the case management has been scheduled for Monday (July 7).
In the petition of appeal, the prosecution argued that the Court of Appeal erred in law in overturning the High Court's findings, which established that Mohd Isa had instructed his former special political officer, Muhammad Zahid Md Arip, to solicit bribes from a Gegasan Abadi Properties Sdn Bhd board member, Ikhwan Zaidel.
The prosecution contended it had presented evidence that following two meetings, Mohd Isa had indirectly instructed Muhammad Zahid to solicit bribes from Ikhwan, and that Muhammad Zahid acted on the instruction and then handed over the bribes in stages to Mohd Isa.
The prosecution also said the Court of Appeal was wrong in law in finding there was evidence from Ikhwan indicating that Mohd Isa had never requested gratification from him in the two meetings with him in his office.
"The Judges of the Court of Appeal erred in law and in fact when they disturbed the factual finding made by the High Court judge that Mohd Isa had instructed Muhammad Zahid to request and receive bribes from Ikhwan indirectly when the respondent (Mohd Isa) uttered the words: "If they give anything later, you just take it" (kalau diorang bagi apa-apa nanti kau ambil lah) to Muhammad Zahid," it said in its petition of appeal.
The prosecution said Muhammad Zahid, who was one of the prosecution's witnesses, had understood the words to mean that anything given by Ikhwan should be accepted by him on behalf of Mohd Isa.
It said the Court of Appeal made a contrary finding that the statement could not, in a literal sense, be interpreted as a specific request or directive to Muhammad Zahid to solicit a bribe from Ikhwan.
The prosecution also argued that the Court of Appeal's findings of fact were inconsistent with the factual findings made by the High Court, which were based on evidence adduced through Muhammad Zahid and Ikhwan, both of whom were found to be credible witnesses.
According to the prosecution, Muhammad Zahid's testimony regarding the words spoken had a factual basis following a second meeting between Mohd Isa and Ikhwan, where Ikhwan had expressed gratitude for the approval of the purchase of the Merdeka Palace Hotel & Suites by Felda Investment Corporation Sdn Bhd (FICSB).
It said Mohd Isa had also informed Muhammad Zahid that Ikhwan had told him that he (Ikhwan) could assist Parti Bumiputera Bersatu Sarawak.
The prosecution said the statement made constituted as a specific instruction from Mohd Isa to Muhammad Zahid to request and receive bribes on his behalf from Ikhwan.
On March 6, 2024, the Court of Appeal three-member bench comprising Justices Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, Datuk Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera (now Federal Court judge) and Datuk SM Komathy Suppiah, acquitted and discharged Mohd Isa after allowing his appeal.
It overturned the Feb 3, 2021, decision by the High Court, which found Mohd Isa guilty of nine corruption charges, allegedly committed on the 49th floor of Menara Felda, Platinum Park, No. 11 Persiaran KLCC, Kuala Lumpur between July 21, 2014, and Dec 11, 2015.
The prosecution filed its notice of appeal on March 7, 2024.
The former Negri Sembilan menteri besar was accused of dishonestly receiving gratification for himself, in cash totalling RM3,090,000 from Ikhwan, through Muhammad Zahid, as gratification for helping to approve the purchase of the hotel by FICSB for RM160 million.
The charges were framed under Section 16(a)(A) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009, punishable under Section 24(1) of the same law, which provides a jail term of not exceeding 20 years and a fine of at least five times the bribe amount, or RM10,000, whichever is higher, upon conviction. – Bernama