The application, filed here last week under Rule 105 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, contends that the previous bench lacked jurisdiction to hear the prosecution’s appeal.
In cause papers filed by Bung’s solicitors, Athimulan & Co, sighted by FMT, the Sabah Umno chief wants the review panel to reinstate the High Court ruling.
The Court of Appeal has fixed the application for case management on April 11.
Meanwhile, Bung has filed a separate application in the subordinate courts’ registry in Kuala Lumpur seeking to stay proceedings in the sessions court pending the outcome of the review application.
FMT understands the prosecution has filed an affidavit to oppose the stay.
Trial judge Rosli Ahmad will hear the stay application on April 9.
Rosli had earlier fixed the trial to run on April 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15, and May 5 and 6.
On Nov 18, a three-member Court of Appeal bench overturned Bung and Zizie’s acquittal by the High Court.
Justice Zaini Mazlan, who delivered the decision, said the revision application which the couple filed in the High Court was improper as it was akin to an appeal.
Bung, then the non-executive chairman of Felcra, is charged with two counts of receiving bribes of RM2.2 million and RM262,500 as an inducement to obtain Felcra’s approval to invest RM150 million in Public Mutual unit trusts.
He is alleged to have accepted the bribes from Norhaili Madhi, a Public Mutual investment agent, through Zizie at Public Bank’s Taman Melawati branch between 12.30pm and 5pm on June 12, 2015.
He is also charged with receiving a bribe of RM337,500 from Norhaili under Zizie’s name at the same location on June 19, 2015.
Zizie faces three charges of abetting Bung in the commission of the alleged offences.
On Sept 2, 2022, the sessions court ordered the couple to enter their defence after ruling that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against them.
On Sept 7 last year, the High Court, which heard a revision application brought under Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code, acquitted the duo. However, that decision was set aside on appeal.