Justice Nordin Hassan, who led a three-member bench, said the Court of Appeal had committed an appealable error that warranted intervention by the apex court.

As such, he said the prosecution’s appeal to set aside the acquittal was allowed.

The bench then issued a warrant of committal for Isa, 76, to begin his jail term at the Sungai Buloh prison.

The other judges who heard the appeal were Justices Lee Swee Seng and Ruzima Ghazali.

In 2021, the High Court found Isa guilty of nine corruption charges involving RM3.09 million. He was sentenced to six years in prison and fined RM15.4 million.

Two years ago, a Court of Appeal bench led by Justice Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, now a Federal Court judge, unanimously allowed Isa’s appeal, quashing the conviction and sentence, and giving rise to the present appeal.

Reading out the apex court’s unanimous verdict today, Nordin said the findings of trial judge Nazlan Ghazali, now a Federal Court judge, were supported by evidence and in accordance with the law.

“The respondent (Isa) failed to rebut the presumption under Section 50(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act,” said Nordin, who took about an hour and 45 minutes to read the judgment.

He said the prosecution had proven all ingredients contained in Section 16(a)(A) of the MACC Act beyond reasonable doubt.

Describing corruption as a heinous act that would destroy a nation, Nordin said the sentence meted out by the High Court was appropriate and in accordance with established principles.

The judge said it was sufficient under the law for the prosecution to show that Isa had received the gratification.

He said the prosecution had shown that the money was a reward for Isa’s assistance in securing approval from the board of directors of Felda Investment Corp Sdn Bhd (FICSB) for the purchase of the Merdeka Palace Hotel & Suites.

The judge said Zahid Arip, Isa’s special officer at the time, and Sarawak businessman Ikhwan Zaidel were credible prosecution witnesses, and that their testimonies remained unshaken, even after cross-examination.

He said the trial judge had the advantage of hearing the witnesses’ testimony, enabling a direct assessment of their demeanour to determine credibility.

Further, he said the money trail and evidence given by Ikhwan, which corroborated Zahid’s testimony, pointed irresistibly to Isa being guilty of the crime.

Nordin said the evidence showed that Zahid had collected money from Ikhwan, which he delivered to Isa’s office in paper bags on nine occasions between July 2014 and December 2015.

Evidence that Zahid had left the money on a table at Isa’s office was strong circumstantial evidence to prove that Isa had received it, the judge said.

On Isa’s request that Zahid “kirim salam” (send his regards) to Ikhwan, Nordin said:

“Conveying salam through an intermediary is customary practice among Muslims, and yet in the context of the present case, it expresses a different connotation.”

The judge said it was illogical for the defence to state that Zahid had solicited and demanded such a substantial amount of money from Ikhwan for himself.

“In the present case, it is the respondent who demanded the money,” he said.

Nordin also described as “improbable” any suggestion that Zahid would swindle such a large amount of money from Ikhwan. “Surely Ikhwan would discover it,” he said.

The judge also dismissed Zahid’s inability to be precise as to the number of times Zahid sent his salam to Ikhwan, calling it a minor discrepancy that did not lead to the collapse of the prosecution’s case.

“After all, Zahid gave evidence about five years after the incidents took place,” he added.

Nordin said the Court of Appeal also erred in holding that the prosecution had presented two different narratives of the case.

He rejected the defence’s contention that the prosecution had altered its narrative midway through the trial to suggest that the money was an “inducement” for Isa not to interfere with the hotel purchase.

He said the prosecution’s case was always that the gratification was a reward for Isa.

Deputy public prosecutors Afzainizam Abdul Aziz and Arif Aizuddin Masrom appeared for the prosecution while M Athimulan represented Isa.

Isa’s next recourse would be to seek a pardon from the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, as the offence was committed in Kuala Lumpur.