PUTRAJAYA: A RM2 million cheque given by a businessman to Tengku Adnan Mansor was a political donation and not for the former minister’s personal benefit, a lawyer told the Court of Appeal.
-Advertisement-
Lead counsel Tan Hock Chuan said that evidence by prosecution witnesses, including businessman Chai Kin Kong, had shown that the money was meant to be used for two by-elections in Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar in 2016.
Umno candidates Mastura Mohd Yazid (Kuala Kangsar) and Budiman Mohd Zohdi (Sungai Besar) won both parliamentary seats.
“Chai testified that he was aware he gave my client (Tengku Adnan) money for the purpose of the Sungai Besar and Kuala Kangsar by-elections.
“It was not the first time he (Chai) had made such a political contribution,” he said.
Tengku Adnan, better known as Ku Nan, is appealing against his conviction on a charge under Section 165 of the Penal Code.
He was found guilty of receiving RM2 million from Chai, who was Aset Kayamas’ director, despite knowing that the businessman’s companies had dealings with the federal territories ministry, which was under him at the time.
Tengku Adnan filed the appeal on Dec 21 last year after the Kuala Lumpur High Court sentenced him to 12 months’ jail and fined him RM2 million.
Tan said a receipt was issued by Umno to Chai, a few days after the latter issued the cheque.
“This evidence supports the fact that Chai had made a contribution for the by-elections.”
He said the trial judge, Mohamed Zaini Mazlan, erred in his findings to say the receipt was only issued to Chai in November 2018, after the change of government.
“There was no evidence presented on this,” the lawyer said.
Tan also said the High Court judge made an error when he described the receipt as “crisp and clean”, and did not look like it was issued on June 14, 2016.
To that, Judge Suraya Othman, who is leading the appeals panel, asked if the Umno receipt was shown to the judge leading him to make such a remark in his written judgment.
Deputy public prosecutor Asmah Musa said the receipt, which Chai produced during the trial in the High Court, was shown and tendered as a defence exhibit. The receipt was also produced before the panel.
-Advertisement-
Tan said the judge also came out with a finding that Chai was a “biased witness” who gave testimony in favour of Tengku Adnan.
This prompted Suraya to ask why the prosecution did not make an attempt to impeach Chai or declare him as a hostile witness.
“The investigating officer (Muhammad Saad Bordani) accepted Chai as an honest witness through his testimony,” Tan added.
Fellow Judge Abu Bakar Jais then asked the lawyer if the receipt would amount to the prosecution’s failure in proving a prima facie case under the Section 165 charge. The third judge on the bench is Ahmad Nasfy Yassin.
“The receipt supports oral evidence of the witness (Chai) and we stand by our submissions that the prosecution did not prove its case against my client,” Tan said.
No one really knows if RM2 million used for by-elections, says prosecution
Asmah, in her submissions, told the court that the prosecution had proven the corruption case beyond a reasonable doubt.
She said Chai and witness Hasbi Jaafar were only informed by Tengku Adnan that the RM2 million would be spent for the Kuala Kangsar and Sungai Besar by-elections but both men did not have personal knowledge on how the money was spent.
Suraya again asked the prosecution on why they did not impeach Chai and Asmah replied that they had never intended to impeach the businessman as his evidence was crucial to their case.
“We were not aware of this Umno receipt and he only adduced it during cross-examination,” she added.
Fellow deputy public prosecutor Nurshuhaida Zainal Azahar said they maintained this Umno receipt was “fabricated” and made to favour the defence.
“There was a deliberate lie by the accused (Tengku Adnan) to Chai and Hasbi that the RM2 million was a political donation. There is no money trail to prove it was spent for the by-elections,” Nurshuhaida said.
After hearing the arguments, Suraya said the court was reserving its decision for now and would inform the defence and prosecution later.
Besides Tan, Tengku Adnan was represented by lawyer S Satharuban.-FMT