In March 2024, the Court of Appeal set aside Isa’s conviction for allegedly receiving RM3 million in kickbacks linked to the approval for the purchase of a hotel in Kuching 10 years earlier.

A three-member bench led by Justice Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera had at the time said that the High Court had committed an appealable error that warranted intervention.

However, in its petition of appeal filed last Friday, the prosecution argued that the appellate court had erred when identifying the elements that make up the offence of receiving gratification.

It said the Court of Appeal was wrong to state that the receipt of corrupt money could not be proven without first establishing solicitation.

“The appellate court erred in holding that soliciting and receiving money are two distinct offences as established in the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 based on legal pronouncements,” they said.

The prosecution also complained that the Court of Appeal fell into error when assessing the evidence of key prosecution witness Zahid Arip, Isa’s special officer at the time.

It said the Court of Appeal had accepted oral evidence that businessman Ikhwan Zaidel, a former director of the hotel, had given Zahid money.

Evidence was also led during the trial that Zahid had passed the money to Isa.

The prosecution said the appellate court was wrong in holding that such evidence ought to have been corroborated.

“Our complaint is that the appellate court failed to appreciate the facts of the case as the trial judge had the audio and video visual benefits of determining the demeanour of witnesses,” it said.

The Federal Court has fixed a case management on July 7.

In 2021, Justice Nazlan Ghazali, now in the Court of Appeal, found Isa guilty of nine corruption charges involving RM3.09 million.

Isa was sentenced to six years in prison and fined RM15.4 million.

In overturning the conviction, Vazeer said the prosecutors had presented two different narratives of their case and that, in such a scenario, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.

He said the trial judge had also misdirected himself when ruling that a prima facie case was established based on Ikhwan’s testimony.

Likewise, the prosecution’s case was that Isa had instructed Zahid to collect money from Ikhwan, but Vazeer said Ikhwan told the court Isa had never directly requested any gratification.

Vazeer added that Zahid was not a credible prosecution witness due to material contradictions in his testimony.