PUTRAJAYA (Dec 12): Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi remains acquitted in the foreign visa pass graft case.
Deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Datuk Yusaini Amer Abdul Karim informed a three-member bench, led by Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali at the Court of Appeal, of the decision by the prosecution and attorney general to withdraw their appeal over a decision in 2022 to acquit Zahid.
Yusaini also informed the bench, which included Datuk Azman Abdullah and Datuk Azmi Ariffin, that there was no evidence Zahid had used his position as the then home minister directly to give the contract, which was the subject of the charges against Zahid.
“The evidence showed the contract was given before Zahid was the home minister, and this showed there was no opportunity or chance for him to abuse his power,” Yusaini said. “The process of extending the said dispute contract was made according to the procedure that was stipulated.”
The DPP said this showed serious gaps in the chronology of the case.
Zahid, the Umno president and Barisan Nasional chairman, was acquitted by the Shah Alam High Court without his defence being called in October 2022.
He faced 33 counts of graft under Section 16(A)(B) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act for allegedly receiving S$13.56 million (RM43.39 million) from Ultra Kirana Sdn Bhd to facilitate the award of a contract for the foreign visa system and one-stop services in China, and the extension of the contract to 2025.
He was also on trial under Section 165 of the Penal Code for seven bribery charges in his capacity as the then home minister for allegedly obtaining for himself bribes in different currencies comprising S$1.15 million, RM3 million, €15,000 (RM67,032) and US$15,000 (RM67,548) from the same company.
Gaps in case
There was a finding by the High Court judge that the source of the money received in this case was not being investigated, while various individuals said to be the source of the funds abroad were being disputed as they were not called during the investigation or the trial, Yusaini said.
There was also no evidence submitted by the three key witnesses of their presence in Zahid’s residences, either in Kajang or the deputy prime minister’s residence in Putrajaya, as well as a conflict in the testimonies of two witnesses about the money allegedly handed to Zahid, the DPP added.
The Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) found there is foundation in law and facts to maintain the High Court decision, following two representation letters sent by Zahid dated Jan 26, 2023 and Feb 7, 2024, and after taking into consideration the findings of facts by the High Court judge.
“Following this, the AG has decided to withdraw all the appeals that were filed,” he said. Che Mohd Ruzima then moved to strike out the AG's appeal.
Yusaini, who is the deputy head of the Appellate and Trial Division of the AGC, appeared alongside Malik Ayob and Zander Lim Wai Keong.
Recently appointed AG Datuk Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar was the DPP who appeared in the Kuala Lumpur High Court to withdraw Zahid's 47 counts of criminal breach of trust, graft and money laundering in the Yayasan Akalbudi case, after the politician’s defence was called.
High Court judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah granted a discharge not amounting to acquittal to Zahid, and lamented that the court’s time and taxpayers' money were wasted in the case.
In both cases, the Court of Appeal had postponed hearing the prosecution’s appeal several times, due to the indecision over Zahid’s representations.
Zahid was represented by Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, Hamidi Md Noh and Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Zainal. When met after proceedings, Zahid said he thanked Allah for His blessing for being free of all charges.
“I am glad the AG has withdrawn the appeal, and thank my lawyers who have fought and strengthened the two representations sent,” Zahid said, adding that he had always prayed that he would be free of all the allegations.
Hisyam expressed similar sentiments, and was grateful to the AG and prosecution for accepting the representations, saying it was "fact-sensitive" and the Shah Alam High Court judge did not make any errors in law.