KUALA LUMPUR, March 28 — Former prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin is now seeking to have the Court of Appeal restore the High Court’s acquittal of him over four abuse of power charges, by asking the appellate court to review its decision last month.
Previously, the Court of Appeal had on February 28 set aside the High Court’s acquittal of Muhyiddin and had ordered his criminal case to be sent back to the Sessions Court for trial.
Muhyiddin has now filed an application to the Court of Appeal to ask it to review and set aside the February 28 decision by one of its panels — chaired by Court of Appeal judge Datuk Hadhariah Syed Ismail, and composed of judges Datuk Azmi Ariffin and Datuk SM Komathy Suppiah; and ultimately also wants the Court of Appeal to restore the High Court’s decision last August 15 to strike out the four charges against him and to acquit him.
When contacted by Malay Mail last night, Muhyiddin’s lawyer Chetan Jethwani confirmed that his client’s review application at the Court of Appeal had been filed yesterday.
In Muhyiddin’s application, he asked for leave or permission under Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994’s Rule 105 to apply to the Court of Appeal to review the previous panel’s decision to set aside the High Court’s acquittal.
In the same application, also sought for the Court of Appeal to exercise its inherent powers under Rule 105 in the interest of justice to review and set aside the previous Court of Appeal panel’s decision, and to restore the High Court’s decision and order for his acquittal and striking out of the four charges.
In an affidavit filed at the Court of Appeal to support his application, Muhyiddin said he believes the Court of Appeal should allow his application for review of the previous panel’s decision, asserting that the previous panel’s decision is a nullity or illegality as he alleged that the previous panel had acted beyond its jurisdiction.
He said this is because a Court of Appeal in criminal appeals should only have jurisdiction to hear and decide on any decision made by a High Court, when the High Court made its decision in exercise of its own jurisdiction or when the High Court is exercising its appellate or revisionary jurisdiction over any criminal matter decided by the Sessions Court.
On March 10 last year, Muhyiddin was charged in the Sessions Court with four abuse of power charges under Section 23(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to those four charges.
The four charges alleged that Muhyiddin used his position as Malaysia’s then prime minister and as Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia president to obtain bribes totalling RM232.5 million from three companies and one individual (Bukhary Equity Sdn Bhd, Nepturis Sdn Bhd, Mamfor Sdn Bhd and Azman Yusoff) for his “associate”, namely his party Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia. He was alleged to have committed these offences during the March 2020 to August 2021 period.
On April 18 last year, Muhyiddin applied to the High Court for the four charges to be struck out and to be discharged and acquitted on all four charges.
The High Court on August 15 last year struck out the four charges and acquitted Muhyiddin after finding that the four charges did not disclose any offence known to law and lacked material particulars.
The Court of Appeal on February 28 ruled in favour of the prosecution which had appealed against the High Court’s decision, and this Court of Appeal decision — for Muhyiddin’s case to be sent back for trial — is the one that Muhyiddin wants to be revised by another panel at the Court of Appeal. [[[ hyperlink: ]]]
The Court of Appeal’s previous panel had said the High Court had erred in law when ruling that the four charges did not disclose any offence known to law, and said the four charges are clear and unambiguous and there was no need for the prosecution to give further details on how the offence was committed.
On February 29, Muhyiddin had also filed an appeal at the Federal Court against the Court of Appeal’s February 28 restoration of the four charges against him.
