Malaysiakini : The trial judge further said that a crucial element of the case was
how the money was delivered. "I simply cannot imagine what envelope
(and) in what size could fit the SG$600,000 in cash which was equivalent to around RM1.6 million at the material time," he said.However, the judge may well have been a bit too harsh here. According to a ThomsonReuters publication, the term prima facie is used to “in both civil and criminal law to denote that, on its face, sufficient evidence exists to support a case.”
It
added, “In most proceedings, one party (usually the claimant) must
discharge a burden of proof by adducing prima facie evidence to
establish its claim, having regard to the relevant standard of proof.
“Prima
facie evidence of a matter, unless rebutted by cogent evidence to the
contrary (meeting the requisite standard of proof), is sufficient to
prove a particular proposition or fact.”
The case of SG$600,000
While
the judge dismissed the evidence of three witnesses as not credible, he
does not appear to have set out on what basis they were considered to
be so, except for one which was widely reported and commented upon by
netizens - the SG$600,000 and how the judge was puzzled that it could be
delivered in an envelope.
It now emerges that a SG$10,000 note is
still legal tender although Singapore has stopped issuing them. It
would require just 60 of such notes to make up SG$600,000. That would
easily fit into an envelope.
The judge obviously missed this very
important point which could have explained the way the money was
delivered. This alone could be enough to warrant an appeal to higher
courts by the prosecution. There may well be more reasons after reading
the grounds of judgment.
Attorney-general Idrus Harun said earlier the prosecution will have to examine the judgment from all graft charges related to the VLN before deciding on an appeal.
Yesterday, The Edge reported,
quoting sources, that the prosecution has filed an appeal against the
High Court’s decision to acquit Zahid on all 40 charges in the VLN case.
If
the report is correct, it is a welcome move. This is a case of rather
high importance and there are already clear indications that it may not
be appropriate to let a single judge decide on the issues which arise.
Under
the circumstances, the high level of public interest and continued
scepticism of the trial judge’s finding, the best thing for the AGC to
do would be to take this to the Court of Appeal, and if necessary, to
the Federal Court, the highest court in the land.
Even if this case is ultimately decided in his favour, Zahid faces other charges. He was ordered
by the Kuala Lumpur High Court early this year to enter his defence in
relation to 47 counts of criminal breach of trust (CBT), bribery and
money laundering linked to tens of millions of ringgit of funds from
Yayasan Akalbudi.
In this separate case, trial judge Collin
Lawrence Sequerah ruled that the prosecution has established a prima
facie case against the former home minister, involving 12 counts of CBT,
eight bribery charges, and 27 money laundering charges.
Thus, it
will be some time before Zahid clears all the charges against him - if
he can, that is. The implication is that he will have continuing
problems with regard to the 15th general elections and may prove to be a
continuing liability to Umno and the nation.
Zahid will still remain in the desperate straits he was in earlier as I explained in this column.
