Ad hoc prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram said a 1993 Supreme Court ruling in Junaidi Abdullah v Public Prosecutor also held that there was no provision for a judge sitting alone to expressly record his reason.
“The duty of an accused person is to answer the prosecution’s case,” said Sri Ram, who is leading the prosecution team in Rosmah Mansor’s corruption trial.
He said this in response to this morning’s decision, which reportedly left Rosmah stunned and in tears. The High Court ordered her to enter her defence on three counts of corruption to help a company secure a RM1.25 billion solar project for 369 rural schools in Sarawak.
Akberdin Abdul Kadir, a member of Rosmah’s legal team said his client was shocked because trial judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan did not provide the grounds for his decision.
The lawyer said Rosmah expected some broad reasons to be given since her trial was a high-profile case.
Rosmah’s defence is that she never asked or received money from then Jepak Holdings Sdn Bhd managing director Saidi Abang Samsudin.
Lawyer Kitson Foong weighed in on the matter, saying Section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code merely mandated the court to make a finding on whether the prosecution had made out a prima facie case on each charge against the accused.
“No more, no less” he told FMT in a text message.
Foong said the fact that Section 50 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act was successfully activated by the judge against Rosmah was indicative that she had to rebut the belief she had accepted corrupt money.
“There is, therefore, no question of the accused or the defence being disadvantaged,” he said.
Lawyer Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali said a ruling as defined under Section 3 of the Courts of Judicature Act was not final.
“In this case, the ruling to enter her defence is only done in the midst of the trial. She is not prejudiced,” he said.
Rafique added that Rosmah had all the opportunity at the defence stage to cast a mere doubt on a lower burden of proof.
He said in any event, this case could automatically go up to the Federal Court and a large bench could rectify any error of law and facts.
Zaini, who proposed not to give a summary of his findings “at this stage”, said the prosecution had adduced credible evidence to prove every ingredient of the charge.
“On the maximum evaluation of the evidence, I find the prosecution has succeeded in proving a prima facie case against the accused (on all the charges),” he said.