SHAH ALAM: Public servants have no business seeking and accepting funds, including political donations.
As a matter of fact, it was an offence to do so under Section 165 of the Penal Code, said the prosecution in its closing submissions in former deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s graft trial at the Shah Alam High Court on Tuesday (Sept 6).
ALSO READ: DPP: Zahid received gratification for himself
Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Raja Rozela Raja Toran, who leads the prosecution team, said Ahmad Zahid must be seen as a public servant, who falls within the ambit of Section 65 of the Penal Code first, as opposed to a politician holding a ministerial position.
“His wages are paid by the government with taxpayers’ money and he is paid to serve the public and not for the public to serve him by delivering cash every month," she said.
ALSO READ: Lawyer: Zahid singled out
She added that he had no business seeking funds under the pretence that it was meant for his political activities.
Raja Rozela also told judge Yazid Mustafa that the law did not recognise political donations and hence politicians receiving monies and calling them political donations made a mockery of the law.
ALSO READ: DPP withdraws letter asking for Zahid’s case to be sped up
She highlighted the allegation that Ahmad Zahid, who was also home minister, received monthly payments from Ultra Kirana Sdn Bhd (UKSB) for four years.
Ahmad Zahid, 69, was charged with 33 counts of receiving bribes from 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).
ALSO READ: Zahid completes giving evidence after 17 days on witness stand
The alleged graft was also to ensure that the contract agreement for the supply of the VLN integrated system by the company is 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 then-home minister.
During cross-examination by the prosecution, UKSB former directors VK Lee and David Tan, had stated that the funds given to Ahmad Zahid were contributions meant for political funding.
Raja Rozela said it was illogical for the company to have made monthly payments over four years and claimed that it was political donations.
“A political donation should not be like putting money into a piggy bank on a regular basis,’’ said Raja Rozela, adding that it should be a one-off payment if it was indeed a donation.
Given that it was done monthly for over four years, UKSB had paid him and not Umno, she said.
Raja Rozela emphasised that public servants cannot accept political donations.
She also highlighted how UKSB directors had easy access to Ahmad Zahid’s private residence at Country Heights Kajang, as well as his official residence in Putrajaya when delivering the cash, which was usually done after 10pm.
She also reminded the court how one of the UKSB directors David Tan had said in his testimony that he had personally delivered RM3mil in cash in a trolley bag to Ahmad Zahid.
Ahmad Zahid’s lead counsel Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, in his rebuttal of the prosecution’s submission, said political donations were now recognised as a defence.
He cited former federal territories minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor’s case where he was acquitted by the Court of Appeal for receiving a RM2mil donation from a businessman to pay for two by-elections in 2016.
He said UKSB directors David Tan, VK Lee and Wan Quoris Shah Wan Abdul Ghani, who were prosecution witnesses, had also testified that the monies given to Ahmad Zahid were meant for Umno.
Hisyam reiterated that Ahmad Zahid was a victim of selective prosecution as other notable and key figures who had allegedly received funds from UKSB had not been hauled up.
Ahmad Zaidi Zainal, who is also on Ahmad Zahid’s defence team, said although it was stated that the money was from UKSB, in all the charges levelled against the former deputy minister, the prosecution did not prove where the funds came from.
“According to evidence in court, it was from Hong Kong and from dividends from an offshore company in Labuan," he said.
He added that money changers involved in receiving and redirecting the funds to the UKSB were also not called as witnesses by the prosecution.
Earlier in her submission, Raja Rozela said it did not matter where the money came from as the crux was that the funds were given to Ahmad Zahid by UKSB directors.
She also said that in Tengku Adnan’s case, the main witness had testified that he had given the money to Umno.
