SHAH ALAM (Sept 6): The fact that former deputy prime minister and then home affairs minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi had asked for cash shows he had acted beyond his ministerial functions, deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Datuk Raja Rozela Raja Toran told the High Court here on Tuesday (Sept 6).
She said this also showed that Zahid had abused his authority and position to ask for money and that it was in Singapore dollars.
Raja Rozela said two witnesses from Ultra Kirana Sdn Bhd (UKSB) — directors Harry Lee Vui Khiun, who is the 15th prosecution witness, and Wan Quoris Shah Wan Abdul Ghani, who is the 16th prosecution witness — had testified about giving the cash money delivered in packages to Zahid's official residence in Seri Satria and his private residence in Country Heights, Kajang.
“Ahmad Zahid did not make any attempts to return the money. This showed the element of graft had been proven when he obtained something that was valuable in consideration,” she added.
She pointed out that Lee told the court that Zahid indicated he needed a contribution to his political fund and asked Lee to assist him in matters relating to Umno.
Lee, she said, understood this request was that Zahid wanted financial assistance from UKSB.
“Ahmad Zahid never mentioned about the amount he wanted although he did say that the contribution should be made in cash and in Singapore dollars, Lee had said,” Raja Rozela said in reading the court transcript.
She said that similarly, Wan Quoris testified that the money was to be given to Zahid in the form of a political donation to Umno after Zahid helped UKSB.
“While Wan Quoris did not ask [about] it in the open, but from his conversation with the minister, the UKSB director understood that [Zahid] was hoping for financial contribution from UKSB,” she added.
The prosecution was submitting at the close of the prosecution's case before High Court judge Datuk Mohd Yazid Mustafa. This is with regards to the 40 alternative charges under Section 165 of the Penal Code on a public officer receiving gratification.
Raja Rozela, who is the deputy head of Prosecution II at the Attorney General's Chambers, said that to prove the element of graft, the prosecution has to prove that Zahid is a public servant, he had obtained something valuable, he obtained it without consideration, and he obtained it in connection with his official business.
She said evidence from the prosecution witnesses had shown there was preferential treatment accorded to UKSB, such as Home Affairs Ministry immigration division’s former secretary Datuk Shahril Ismail's testimony that while it was common for Shahril to bring documents to Zahid’s house, that was the first time he had seen a stakeholder (UKSB) at a minister’s house.
“The prosecution respectfully submits that the accused (Zahid) had more than sufficient knowledge that UKSB had connections with his official functions as minister of home affairs,” she added.
UKSB’s dealing with Zahid and the Home Affairs Ministry are with regards to, among others, a one-stop centre (OSC) to offer visa for Chinese tourists from China and the foreign visa system (VLN).
Not political donation
Raja Rozela also said the court should not consider the defence's argument that the money received was political donation, which the defence claimed is not illegal.
However, the focus should be that the accused (Zahid) is a public servant, she said.
“Please look at him as a public servant as per Section 165 of the Penal Code. Do not look at him as a politician as he was holding the post as a minister. His wages are paid by the government using taxpayers’ money.
"He is paid to serve the public and not for the public to serve him in delivering cash every month,” the DPP said.
Raja Rozela said “the minister has no business asking for money or cash on the pretence for his political career”.
“Seriously do not look at him as a politician or a senior minister. He is a mere public servant within the ambit of Section 165 of the Penal Code. The current existing law or even tax laws do not recognise political donation. Is it ok to receive the money as I am a politician — this argument is totally absurd and makes a mockery of the law,” she said.
The DPP quizzed as to what the role of the minister is if not to make decisions. She further warned that absolute power has a tendency to corrupt, and that this was what the court should take note and be concerned of, as Zahid received the money from a person connected to his official duty.
“It would be a mockery to the law and the very purpose of Section 165 of the Penal Code for the court to consider this as a donation, as a public servant is not allowed to receive donations,” she said.
Raja Rozela said UKSB had given money to Zahid on a monthly basis from October 2014 until the middle of 2018.
“There was a demand (by Zahid) for an increase of the amount twice, once in 2015, where S$200,000 was increased to S$300,000, and again in 2017 from S$300,000 to S$500,000.
“If it is a political donation, it should be a one-off transaction or payment. Here, it occurred every month for almost four years. More importantly, the money was never returned. Ahmad Zahid also never questioned about the money. Our witnesses paid to him and not to Umno,” she added.
This can be seen in Lee’s testimony that the money was given to Zahid and not to Umno, unlike in Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor's case where the main witness told the court the money was given to Umno, she said.
“He (Lee) would not have given it if this does not affect their business. Just because the accused says it is a political donation, it does mean it is halal,” she told the court.
Source of money is not relevant
Raja Rozela further said that although the witnesses from UKSB admitted the source of money was not from the company, what was important was that Lee and Wan Quoris had given the money for the company.
"It does not matter if they [robbed] a bank in Latin America and use the money to pay Ahmad Zahid, the fact stipulates that the money is paid by UKSB," she said.
Here the money came from Hong Kong or Labuan, and not from UKSB’s accounts, she added.
The DPP said one cannot dispute the fact that UKSB had given the money to Zahid to ensure their business survival with the ministry.
Hence, she added the source of money for the contribution is not relevant, but the fact is the contribution had been made to ensure UKSB’s business survival.
For this reason, Raja Rozela told the court that the prosecution had successfully established a prima facie case against Zahid and hence defence should be called.
Besides the alternative charges, Zahid is facing 33 charges of receiving bribes amounting to S$13.56 million from UKSB for himself as the then home affairs minister to extend the contract of the company as the operator of OSC service in China and the VLN, as well as to maintain the contract agreement to supply the VLN integrated system for the same company by the Home Affairs Ministry.
On another seven counts, the Umno president was charged with obtaining for himself S$1,150,000, RM3 million, 15,000 Swiss francs and US$15,000 from the same company with official links to his official duty.
He was charged with committing all the offences at Seri Satria, Precinct 16, Putrajaya, and Country Heights, Kajang between October 2014 and March 2018.