PUTRAJAYA, March 19 — Lawyers for Muar MP Syed Saddiq Abdul Rahman, in his appeal against his conviction and sentence for corruption, argue that all four charges are unsafe and should be set aside. They claim the charges were based on flawed legal reasoning, misinterpretation of facts, and contradictions within the prosecution’s case.

They further argued that the trial judge failed to consider key witness testimonies and documentary evidence that directly supported Syed Saddiq’s defence. The lawyers have requested the conviction be overturned and that Syed Saddiq be acquitted of all charges once his two-day appeal is heard at the Court of Appeal.

In today’s appeal hearing, Syed Saddiq was represented by Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abidin and Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik.

Syed Saddiq was sentenced to seven years in jail and two strokes of the cane for multiple charges including abetting criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of property, and money laundering on November 9, 2023.

The former Malaysian United Democratic Alliance (Muda) president received a three-year sentence and one stroke of the cane for abetting the misuse of RM1 million from Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia’s Youth wing Armada’s funds.

The 32-year-old was also sentenced to two years and one stroke of the cane for misappropriating RM120,000 from a Maybank Islamic account linked to Armada Bumi Bersatu Enterprise.

Additionally, Syed Saddiq was fined RM5 million for each of two money laundering charges, with a default penalty of two years in jail per offence.

During today’s appeal, heard before a three-member panel consisting of Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, Datuk Haji Azman Abdullah, and Datuk Noorin Badaruddin, Yusof argued that on the first charge of abetment of CBT, the judge’s reasoning was flawed. He explained that Syed Saddiq had instructed key witnesses to withdraw RM1 million from Armada’s bank account. Yusof stated that Syed Saddiq’s defence was more than just a denial; he had explained his actions in detail and presented evidence showing that the withdrawal was a collective decision made by Armada’s leadership to provide financial aid during the pandemic and for Ramadan and Hari Raya Aidilfitri.

“There are contradictions in the prosecution’s claims that the trial judge erred in dismissing this explanation as despite the evidence showing Armada’s leadership agreeing to the withdrawal and a press statement that ensued in June 2020 confirming the monies were used for pandemic relief efforts.

“The defence also cross examined the witnesses and confirmed that he was tasked with discussing the exact amount to be withdrawn with Armada’s excos, details wrongfully ignored by the trial judge,” said Yusof.

On the second charge of dishonest appropriation of RM120,000, the defence argued that despite Syed Saddiq proving the money was raised through fundraising dinners for his political campaigning during the 14th general elections, there was no obligation to disclose its usage since the funds were personal campaign donations.

“There were contradictions in the prosecution’s argument who themselves had admitted in their written submissions that there was no obligation for the appellant to inform others about his use of the funds. This contradicts their claim that his explanation was an afterthought,” said Yusof, adding that the prosecution deliberately ignored these facts and instead mischaracterised the funds as belonging to Armada to justify the misappropriation charge.

As for the money laundering charges, Hisyam argued that the RM120,000 belonged to Syed Saddiq, was confirmed by witnesses to be his, and that they were puzzled as to how it could be considered an unlawful activity.

“Under Section 403 of the Penal Code, misappropriation can only occur if the money belonged to someone else. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the RM120,000 was not Syed Saddiq’s, the money laundering charges have no basis,” Hisyam said.

“The trial judge’s failure to acknowledge these facts led him to wrongfully uphold the prosecution’s argument without recognising that their key witness, SP13, had repeatedly confirmed that the fundraising dinners were for Syed Saddiq’s personal campaign,” he said.

SP13 is witness number 13 and refers to the prosecution’s star witness and former Armada assistant treasurer Rafiq Hakim Razali.

“There’s also a contradiction in the trial judge’s ruling in upholding the prosecution’s case despite SP13’s own testimony confirming the funds were for Syed Saddiq’s campaign. These charges rest on faulty foundation and should not have been upheld by the judge.”

Syed Saddiq has said he would not be in court to defend himself against pilfering over RM1 million from Bersatu’s funds if he had supported its president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin who was trying to become Malaysia’s eight prime minister in early 2020.

The 32-year-old former minister said that the criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of funds charges he is facing were fabricated because he did not sign a statutory declaration (SD) supporting Muhyiddin following the controversial “Sheraton Move” that led to the collapse of the Pakatan Harapan government in 2020.

Both lawyers referenced incidents where they claimed witnesses were intimidated and coerced into making statements under duress. They highlighted numerous complaints, press conferences, social media posts, and other accounts from witnesses who alleged that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had been heavy-handed with them.

Overall, their argument was that the trial judge, Judicial Commissioner Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid, did not properly evaluate the defence, misinterpreted witness testimonies, and overlooked key documentary evidence.

Contradictions existed regarding the RM120,000 and its ownership. They claimed that if the money was legally obtained, it could not have originated from unlawful activities.

They also pointed out the lack of legal basis for the charges, arguing that the withdrawal of RM1 million was a collective decision, not an individual act of abetment. Furthermore, they stated that the RM120,000 belonged to the accused, so no misappropriation occurred, and the RM100,000 for money laundering came from legal campaign funds.

“The appellant in this case has not received a fair trial, a right guaranteed under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution. There was no judicial appreciation of the defence evidence and submissions made.

“It is very obvious that the learned trial judge had breached the statutory duty under Section 182A of the Criminal Procedure Code. There was further breach of the common law principle that a defence put forward must be judicially appreciated.

“In consequence of the appealable errors committed by the learned trial judge, all convictions are not safe and ought to be set aside,” they concluded.

Syed Saddiq arrived in court today accompanied by singer and actress Bella Astillah, and around 40 supporters.

The appeal will resume tomorrow morning, with the prosecution, led by Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Wan Shaharudin Wan Ladin, beginning proceedings.