PUTRAJAYA (Dec 12): In an unprecedented move, the Federal Court has granted a one-week “cooling-off” period for both the prosecution and defence in former youth and sports minister Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman’s graft case to reconsider whether they wish to proceed with the final appeal.

Court of Appeal (COA) President Datuk Abu Bakar Jais, who is leading the three-member panel, said the court was not making any decision yet and encouraged both sides to reflect on the merits of continuing the litigation.

“Both parties should go back and reflect on your positions. Do you still believe the appeal needs to be decided by the court?” he asked as submissions concluded on Friday.

Drawing from his time in the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC), Abu Bakar said it was common for prosecution teams to meet and reassess their stance.

"When I was a deputy public prosecutor in the AGC, what we [members of the prosecution team] did was we had a meeting and we reviewed everything.

"I hope you go back and discuss. If you think you can still prove your appeal, by all means, continue. But if you review your case and find there is not much substance, you tell the court,” he added.

The panel, which includes Federal Court judges Datuk Che Ruzima Ghazali and Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah, directed parties to return next week. Abu Bakar stressed that if no party signals an intention to withdraw, the court will proceed to deliver its decision.

“All three judges will write their grounds of judgement. Whether the appeal is allowed or not, three written judgements will be issued,” he said.

The comments, while addressed to both sides, came without clear indication of what prompted the court to offer this unusual pause in proceedings.

On Friday, the defence completed its submissions, with the judges actively engaging both sides throughout the hearing, posing hypotheticals and summarising arguments to clarify key issues.

Syed Saddiq was acquitted by the COA in June of four charges related to abetting criminal breach of trust (CBT), misappropriation of party funds and money laundering involving Bersatu’s youth wing Angkatan Bersatu Anak Muda (Armada). He previously led Armada before leaving the party in May 2020.

He was initially convicted by the High Court and sentenced to seven years’ jail, two strokes of the rotan, and a RM10 million fine. He had been found guilty of two main charges that were separate and not connected to each other.

Syed Saddiq has maintained that the monies were used for the party's welfare programme for the Covid-19 outbreak and also for Ramadan and Hari Raya, which were around the corner. The prosecution, however, asserts that there was ill intention behind the withdrawal of funds to strengthen Syed Saddiq's position amid the party's internal turmoil.

Much of Friday’s scrutiny centred on the first charge: that Syed Saddiq abetted Armada’s former assistant treasurer, Rafiq Hakim Razali, in committing CBT involving RM1 million in March 2020.

Che Ruzima questioned the prosecution’s reliance on Rafiq’s alleged wrongdoing despite him never being charged.

“The prosecution’s argument always alludes to Rafiq having committed an offence. But who determines his guilt? Which court found him guilty?

“There has to be an official charge, witnesses called, and a judicial determination. Why wasn’t Rafiq charged?” he asked.

Deputy public prosecutor Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin responded that, in law, a principal offender need not be charged for an abetment charge to stand.

“There is no requirement for a conviction. The principal offender does not need to be charged,” he said.

Defence counsel Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, however, argued that Rafiq’s action — withdrawing funds for welfare programmes during Covid-19 and ahead of Ramadan — was permitted under Armada’s constitution. Therefore, he said, the act itself did not constitute CBT.

“If the principal act is not an offence, Syed Saddiq cannot be guilty of abetting it,” the senior lawyer argued.

The second charge concerns the alleged misuse of RM120,000 belonging to Armada Bumi Bersatu Enterprise (ABBE), a company created to generate funds for Armada through merchandise sales. The sum was transferred into Syed Saddiq’s personal Maybank account in April 2018.

Hisyam contended that the charge was defective because it stated that the funds “belonged to the Maybank account of ABBE”, rather than identifying ABBE itself as the owner of the property.

Abu Bakar: Isn't that too fine a distinction?

Hisyam: [In a sample charge] the owner of the property must follow the words "BELONGING TO". It must be the name [of] the owner of the property.

However, Hisyam pointed out that in the charge, it is stated that the RM120,000 in question belonged to the Maybank account of ABBE, not the owner of the property, making it defective.

The court will reconvene next week, when parties are expected to indicate whether they intend to proceed with or discontinue the appeal.

Read also:
Syed Saddiq appeal: Apex Court panel says not new to issue, asks to keep arguments brief
Syed Saddiq misused donations for personal use, apex court hears as final appeal begins