Lawyer M Athimulan, representing Bung, said trial judge Rozina Ayob’s decision went against established law.
“Her findings are perverse as they are not supported by legal principles,” the lawyer told Justice Azhar Abdul Hamid during submissions in revision proceedings brought by the couple to set aside Rozina’s order.
Bung, 65, is charged with two counts of receiving bribes amounting to RM2.2 million and RM262,500 as gratification to obtain Felcra’s approval to make a RM150 million investment in Public Mutual’s unit trust.
He is accused of receiving the bribes from Public Mutual investment agent Madhi Abdul Hamid, through Zizie, at Public Bank’s Taman Melawati branch here between 12.30pm and 5pm on June 12, 2015.
He is also charged with receiving a bribe of RM337,500 from another Public Mutual investment agent, Norhaili Mokhtar, under Zizie’s name at the same location on June 19, 2015.
Zizie, 44, faces three charges of abetting her husband in the alleged offences.
In her oral judgment, Rozina said she had exercised caution after noting that Madhi and Norhaili had given statements to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) which contradicted their testimonies in court.
“After due consideration, I accepted other parts of the evidence given by Madhi and Norhaili,” she said.
The judge said she also took into account the evidence of other prosecution witnesses when ordering Bung and Zizie to enter their defence.
“As such, the prosecution has proven all ingredients of the charges to establish a prima facie case,” she said.
Rozina said she had invoked the presumption under Section 50 of the MACC Act 2009 to hold that Bung had received the money as gratification.
Today, Athimulan said the trial judge had overlooked material evidence by Madhi and Norhaili, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
“For example, Madhi had denied that money was given to Zizie on behalf of Bung,” he said.
Lawyer K Kumaraendran, appearing for Zizie, said that in the interest of justice, Azhar ought to examine the records and rule that Madhi and Norhaili were witnesses whose testimonies could not be believed.
Deputy public prosecutor Law Chin How submitted that Rozila’s ruling is not tainted with illegality, impropriety or incorrectness to allow for the revision.
“The prima facie ruling is not something rare and exceptional. It happens every day in the lower courts. So, both accused did not suffer a miscarriage of justice as alleged,” he said.
Law said the couple’s remedy is to file an appeal to the High Court should the trial court find them guilty and impose a sentence in accordance with the law.
Azhar will deliver his ruling at 3pm.