Lawyer K Kumaraendran, appearing for Zizie Izette Abdul Samad, submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses – Public Mutual unit trust agents Norhaili Mokhtar and Madhi Abdul Hamid – corroborated his client’s defence.
“The evidence of Norhaili and Madhi supported Zizie’s position that the money was an introduction fee,” he said in his submission at the close of the defence’s case before judge Rosli Ahmad.
Kumaraendran also said the prosecution did not challenge Norhaili and Madhi’s evidence, despite them being considered hostile witnesses. “The prosecution did not commence impeachment proceedings,” he said.
Bung, a former Kinabatangan MP and Sabah Umno chief, was charged in 2019 with two counts of accepting bribes amounting to RM2.2 million and RM262,500 as an inducement to secure Felcra’s approval to invest RM150 million in Public Mutual unit trusts.
He was accused of receiving bribes from Madhi through Zizie at Public Bank’s Taman Melawati branch on June 12 and June 19, 2015. He was also charged with corruptly obtaining RM337,500 in cash from Norhaili through a Public Ittikal Sequel Fund account registered under Zizie’s name, for the same purpose.
Bung took the stand to testify in his defence in September last year. However, the prosecution withdrew the charges against him in January following his death a month earlier.
Zizie is charged under Section 28(1)(c) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009 with abetting Bung in relation to the alleged offences.
If found guilty, she faces up to 20 years in jail and a fine not exceeding five times the gratification sum.
Lawyer M Athimulan, who previously represented Bung but now appears for Zizie, submitted that she should be acquitted because the principal offender had been freed.
“Based on Indian case law, Zizie should automatically walk free as the court acquitted and discharged Bung,” he said.
Lawyer Ridah Abdah Subri also said Zizie was not required to prove her innocence or explain every surrounding circumstance to perfection. “The law only requires the defence to raise a reasonable doubt, which we have done,” he said.
Ridah said the prosecution did not produce evidence showing that Zizie solicited or demanded the money on Bung’s behalf. “There is also no conspiracy or abetment as stated by the prosecution,” he said, adding that Zizie was not guilty of having knowledge or intention of committing the crime.
Deputy public prosecutor Law Chin How submitted that the RM2.8 million was not an introduction fee, but corrupt money as defined under Section 3 of the MACC Act 2009.
“We managed to prove abetment, as there was a conspiracy between Zizie and Bung,” he said, adding that Bung had called Norhaili to do a presentation before the Felcra board.
He said while the board only approved a RM50 million investment, Bung sent three letters through his officer to then second finance minister Ahmad Husni Mohamad Hanadzlah to obtain approval for RM150 million.
Law said the defence of Zizie, who collected the money on behalf of Bung, was unbelievable as she never told Bung that Public Mutual was going to pay her RM2.2 million in cash, with the remaining RM600,000 invested in Public Mutual’s unit trust products.
“She testified that the money was a private matter,” he said, adding that in the same breath, she went on record to state that she would not do anything detrimental to derail Bung’s political career.
Another deputy public prosecutor, Fadhly Zamry, said Rosli could not revisit the prosecution’s case as submitted by the defence. “All the ingredients of the crimes were established when Bung and Zizie were asked to enter their defence,” he said.
Fadhly said Rosli had to evaluate the prosecution’s case and Zizie’s defence and decide whether she is to be acquitted or convicted.
Rosli will deliver his ruling on July 20.