His lead counsel Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik contended that the trial judge failed to properly assess the defence’s arguments and relied on questionable testimony from a key prosecution witness.
SHAH ALAM - Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman’s defence team argued that the trial judge who found him guilty of corruption and money laundering had seriously erred by not taking all the evidence into account.
His lead counsel Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik contended that the trial judge failed to properly assess the defence’s arguments and relied on questionable testimony from a key prosecution witness.
The defence maintained that the RM1 million withdrawal from Bersatu’s Armada youth wing was for legitimate party purposes and that Syed Saddiq did not personally benefit from the funds.
As the hearing of Syed Saddiq's appeal against his conviction and sentence continued before the Court of Appeal, today, here’s a breakdown of the key arguments raised by the defence team on why his conviction should be overturned.
Defence claims High Court ignored key arguments
Hisyam argued that the trial judge failed to properly consider Syed Saddiq’s defence, which was not a mere denial but supported by substantial explanations that countered the prosecution’s case.
The defence contended that Syed Saddiq never instructed former Armada assistant treasurer Rafiq Hakim Razali and former Armada assistant secretary Ahmad Redzuan Mohamed Shafi to withdraw RM1 million from the party’s bank account.
"The appellant’s right to a fair trial was severely compromised due to the court’s failure to consider multiple crucial arguments presented at the end of the defence case.
"This failure has significantly prejudiced the appellant," Hisyam said.
He further explained that the withdrawal was discussed in an Armada G5 leadership meeting in early March 2020.
The purpose was to allocate funds for Covid-19 relief efforts and welfare assistance in preparation for Ramadan and Hari Raya Aidilfitri before the Movement Control Order was implemented.
Hisyam emphasised that the trial judge erred in dismissing the defence’s case solely based on disbelief.
"The appellant also stated that there was never a requirement to prepare a working paper for Armada Exco’s approval of funds exceeding RM500,000. Overall, the appellant was not involved in any act of abetment in this case," he added.
Former Armada information chief Ulya Aqamah Husamudin, who testified as the third defence witness during trial, supported Syed Saddiq’s explanation. Hisyam said the High Court judge’s failure to weigh this testimony against the prosecution’s claims led to a miscarriage of justice.
Defence challenges credibility of key prosecution witness
One of the defence’s strongest arguments was that a key prosecution witness, Rafiq, was allegedly pressured into testifying against Syed Saddiq to satisfy the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
"There is clear evidence that SP13 (Rafiq) was broken (during MACC remand) and satisfied the MACC by giving testimony as required by the MACC," Hisyam told the Court of Appeal.
Hisyam highlighted that Rafiq was held in MACC custody for six days and was under severe mental stress during the investigation. He pointed out that during cross-examination in the High Court, Rafiq admitted that he had been "broken" by the MACC and told his wife that he was under immense pressure.
The defence suggested that Rafiq changed his testimony to align with MACC’s expectations. Hisyam argued that this compromised his credibility, making his statements unreliable as evidence against Syed Saddiq.
Defence argues there was no criminal intent
Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden, another lawyer representing Syed Saddiq, argued that the charges of criminal breach of trust (CBT) and misappropriation of funds lacked the necessary elements of an actual crime.
"The funds were used for party purposes and not for his client’s individual benefit. The RM1 million in this case was withdrawn in March 2020 and used for preparations to face the Covid-19 outbreak and also for Ramadan and Hari Raya, which were around the corner.
"Not a single sen of the RM1 million went into (Syed Saddiq's) account. The funds for the abovementioned purpose were also lawful," he said.
According to the defence, Syed Saddiq had never been required to approve financial decisions exceeding RM500,000 throughout his tenure in the Bersatu Supreme Leadership Council.
Therefore, the argument that he committed CBT was flawed, as he neither personally handled nor benefited from the funds in question.
Charges against Syed Saddiq
Syed Saddiq was charged with four charges which were:
On Nov 9, 2023, the Kuala Lumpur High Court sentenced Syed Saddiq to seven years in prison, two strokes of the cane and a RM10 million fine. However, he was granted a stay of execution of his sentence pending his appeal.
In his 22-page judgement, judge Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid dismissed Syed Saddiq's defence and labelled his explanations as "illogical."
What’s next?
The prosecution, led by deputy public prosecutor Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, is expected to present its counterarguments in the hearing of the appeal at the Court of Appeal, today.
The Court of Appeal panel, comprising judges Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, Datuk Azman Abdullah and Datuk Noorin Badaruddin, will continue deliberating on Syed Saddiq’s appeal.
As the case unfolds, Syed Saddiq has received support from family members and public figures, including actress Bella Astillah, who was seen at the Palace of Justice during the hearing of the appeal which started yesterday.
The Court of Appeal's verdict on Syed Saddiq’s appeal will determine whether the former youth and sports minister will be acquitted of the grat charges or serve his sentence as ruled by the High Court.
Download Sinar Daily application.Click Here!
