Ahmad Zahid at the KL High Court complex — Filepic by RAJA FAISAL HISHAN/The Star
SHAH ALAM: Former deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has been singled out and subjugated to selective and politically motivated prosecution, said his lead counsel Hisyam Teh Poh Teik to the court.
Although there were others who had received funds from the same source as Ahmad Zahid, he was the only one who was dragged to court, he added.
“Why only charge him when the others were not?’’ asked Hisyam.
Ahmad Zahid was charged with 33 counts of receiving bribes from Ultra Kirana Sdn Bhd (UKSB) during his tenure as home minister in order to extend the company’s contract to continue operating the one-stop centre in China and the Foreign Visa System (VLN).
The alleged graft was also to ensure the contract agreement for the supply of the VLN integrated system by the company was maintained.
He was also levelled with seven additional charges for allegedly procuring for himself S$1.15mil, RM3mil, 15,000 Swiss francs, and US$15,000 in his capacity as the Home Minister.
During cross examination by the prosecution, UKSB former directors VK Lee and David Tan stated that the funds given to Ahmad Zahid were contributions meant for political funding.
The duo also testified that others who received political funding from their company included former prime ministers Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, former Sabah chief minister Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal and former foreign minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman. But all those who were named denied that they had received funds from UKSB.
“Why was Muhyiddin not charged?’’ asked Hisyam.
He added that just like Ahmad Zahid, Muhyiddin had also been a home minister and received money from UKSB, which was connected to the company’s business.
“We have proved that the public prosecutor practised selective prosecution when it pressed charges only against the accused and not on ‘these politicians’ who were implicated,’’ stated the defence’s submission. He queried why the other politicians were not even called up as witnesses by the prosecution.
Hisyam also said the three main witnesses, Tan, Lee, and another director, Wan Quoris Shah Wan Abdul Ghani, were “untrustworthy”, “dishonest” and had “zero credibility”.
He also said that the three had broken the law by doing things like breach of trust, breaking the Income Tax Act, and being corrupt.
The defence counsel also said that there was already a precedent set that accepting political funding was not unlawful.
Ahmad Zahid had admitted that he had received two political donations amounting to RM200,000 from UKSB’s representatives.
He cited the Court of Appeal’s decision in former Federal Territories Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor’s case, which acquitted him of graft for receiving money from a businessman to fund two by-elections in 2016. “There is nothing wrong, illegal or improper about receiving political donations unless the evidence adduced can show a connection between the political donations and the VLN contracts, which the prosecution has failed to do so,’’ he said.
Hisyam concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against Ahmad Zahid.He added that Ahmad Zahid should be acquitted and discharged due to being selectively persecuted as well as due to the non-credibility of the main witnesses.
Judge Yazid Mustafa later set next Monday for the prosecution to rebut the defence’s argument.
