PUTRAJAYA (Feb 28): The Court of Appeal has allowed the prosecution's appeal against a High Court decision last year, which struck out four abuse of power charges against former prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and acquitted him of the charges.

A three-judge bench led by Datuk Hadhariah Syed Ismail ruled that there were appealable errors in High Court judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin’s decision to allow Muhyiddin’s application to strike out the charges on Aug 15 last year.

Hadhariah's stance was backed by Datuk Azmi Ariffin and Datuk SM Komathy.

Delivering the bench's unanimous decision, they said that the High Court judge had erred in striking out the charges.

"In our view, the four charges are clear and unambiguous [and] as such there is no necessity for the prosecution to set out the manner or give further particulars as to how the offence was committed.

"Therefore we allow the appeal and set aside the High Court order. The case is remitted to the Sessions Court Kuala Lumpur for the next course of action," Hadhariah said in delivering her judgement on Wednesday.

It had been Muhyiddin’s contention that the charges lacked particulars and as such he could not mount a defence because of it. Muhyiddin, via his lawyers, argued that the phrasing or the wording of his charges were wrong.

His lawyers, led by Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, had argued that his party Bersatu cannot be categorised as an “associate” as stated in the charges against him and according to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009. (Parti Bersatu is termed as being an “associate” to Muhyiddin in his charges.)

Hadhariah said that the appellant (the public prosecutor) had contended that the term “political society” falls within the definition of the term “associate” under Section 3 of the MACC Act.

She said that the bench agreed with the contention.

“The appellant has contended that a political society comes within the definition of associate under Section 3 of the MACC Act. It is further argued by the appellant that a society falls within the definition of organisation under Section 3 of the same Act.”

Muhyiddin’s defence argued that the word “society” from “political society” is not mentioned in Section 3, and as such it could not come under the definition of an “associate”.

However, Hadhariah did not agree to his submission.

“We do not agree with this submission. We find that there is no merit in the respondents submission that because the word 'society' is not mentioned in Section 3 therefore society cannot come within the definition of associate,” she said.

They surmised that Bersatu is a political society which comes within the definition of “associate” under Section 3 of the MACC Act.

"In our view, the ordinary meaning of organisation is a group formed for a particular purpose; as a society is also a group formed for a particular purpose, it'll fall within the definition of organisation. It follows that Bersatu, a political society, comes within the definition of associate as we find under Section 3 of the MACC Act," said Hadhariah.

Lead prosecution lawyer Datuk Dusuki Mokhtar had argued that if there were a lack of details, it cannot be classed as a defective charge.

“The missing details (if there were), like how the respondent (Muhyiddin) used his position (whether in action or making a decision) can’t be classified as a defective charge.

“This is a matter of facts, and this has to be decided when witnesses take the stand in the trial (to ascertain the details).”

The deputy public prosecutor (DPP) said that the prosecution has to be given the opportunity to prove a prima facie case at the lower courts against Muhyiddin.

However, Hisyam refuted this and said that without the particulars in the charges, they would not know how to mount a defence for his client.

“Without the particulars we would not know how to mount a defence,” he said.

He cited the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) cases of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and former 1MDB chief executive officer Arul Kanda Kandasamy as an example and said that relevant particulars were given in the charges.

“In both the above cases, charges under Section 23 of the MACC Act were preferred against the accused persons therein. In these charges, the appellant disclosed the relevant particulars,” he said, adding that the High Court judge was correct to rule that the charges were bad in law.

After reading her decision, Hadhariah set March 4 for case management at the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur.

The prosecution was represented by DPPs Dusuki, Ahmad Akram Gharib, and Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin.

Muhyiddin, 77, was charged along with his party, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia, with having received RM232.5 million in bribes from corporate entities and an individual between March 1, 2020 and Aug 20, 2021, in his capacity as the then prime minister and Bersatu president.

According to the charges, the money from Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd, Nepturis Sdn Bhd, Mamfor Sdn Bhd and Datuk Azman Yusoff was deposited into Bersatu’s bank accounts.

This latest decision means that the charges are reinstated, and Muhyiddin will have to go to trial in the Sessions Court.

The former prime minister, however, has one more avenue of appeal — the Federal Court — and Hisyam told media that the team is “seriously considering” appealing against the Court of Appeal decision.

Muhyiddin is also facing a further three money-laundering charges linked to these four charges.

The three charges are framed under the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001.

Read also:
Money-laundering charges against Muhyiddin put on hold pending appeal