PETALING JAYA: On Sept 1, the Kuala Lumpur High Court found Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor guilty of all three counts of graft in her RM1.25 billion solar hybrid trial involving 369 rural schools in Sarawak.
Rosmah, 70, was charged with soliciting RM187.5 million from former Jepak Holdings Sdn Bhd managing director Saidi Abang Samsudin through her former aide, Datuk Rizal Mansor, as inducement to help the company secure the solar project.
She was also charged with receiving bribes amounting to RM5 million from Saidi, through Rizal, at Seri Perdana in Putrajaya on Dec 20, 2016, and faced an additional charge of receiving RM1.5 million from Saidi at her home at 11, Jalan Langgak Duta in Taman Duta, Kuala Lumpur on Sept 7, 2017.
All charges were proffered under Section 16(a)(A) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009.
Before Judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan sentenced Rosmah to 10 years in jail on each charge to be served concurrently on each count and a record RM970 million fine, she addressed the court as part of the defence’s mitigation and claimed, among others, that she was a victim and “they’ve done this to my husband”.
“Nobody saw me taking the money, nobody saw me counting the money.”
So, what caused the judge to come to his decision after hearing the testimonies of 23 prosecution witnesses over 44 days of trial? Herein, theSun provides extracts of the judgment that found her guilty as charged.
It must be noted that the court’s duty at the end of the prosecution’s case was to conclude if it (the prosecution) had proven a prima facie case against Rosmah, through adducing evidence on every single element of the alleged offences, which otherwise would cause her to be acquitted.
And, if the evidence was not rebutted or went unexplained by the defence, it will result in a conviction.
In the first charge, Zaini found that Rosmah had indeed solicited gratification as inducement to assist Jepak in getting the solar hybrid project through direct negotiations with the Education Ministry.
Once the first elements had been established, the presumption under Section 50(1) of the MACC Act 2009 arose against her.
In part, the section reads: “Where any proceedings against any person for an offence under sections 16, 17, 18, 21, 22 or 23 is proved that any gratification has been received or agreed to be received, accepted or agreed to be accepted, obtained or attempted to be obtained, solicited, given or agreed to be given, promised, or offered by or to the accused, the gratification shall be presumed to have been corruptly received or agreed to be received, accepted or agreed to be accepted.”
Zaini said the second element of the first charge is therefore also fulfilled, in that Rosmah is presumed to have solicited the gratification as inducement to assist Jepak in getting the project through direct negotiations with the Education Ministry unless the contrary is proven pursuant to Section 50.
He found that the prosecution had successfully established the first and second elements of the first charge.
On the third charge of receiving RM5 million from Saidi through Rizal, the judge said the prosecution had to prove two elements. First, that Rosmah had, on Dec 20, 2016, at Seri Perdana, received RM5 million from Saidi.
And second, that she received the RM5 million corruptly as a reward to help Jepak obtain the project through direct negotiations from the Education Ministry.
Zaini found that the prosecution had successfully proven the first element of the third charge – that Rosmah had received the RM5 million from Saidi at the date and place in question.
He said the rebuttal presumption under Section 50(1) of the MACC Act 2009 arose against her regarding the second element of the third charge, the burden of which lay on Rosmah to rebut on a balance of probabilities (which she failed to do).
On the second charge where Rosmah was accused of corruptly receiving the RM1.5 million from Saidi on Sept 7, 2017, at her Taman Duta home as a reward for her helping Jepak to obtain the project from the Education Ministry through direct negotiations, Zaini said the prosecution will need to prove two elements.
First, that the accused, on Sept 7, 2017, at the place in question, had received from Saidi RM1.5 million. And secondly, that she had received the RM1.5 million corruptly as a reward to help Jepak be awarded the project through direct negotiations with the Education Ministry.
Zaini found that the prosecution had successfully proven the first element of the second charge, in that Rosmah had received the RM1.5 million from Saidi.
In respect of the second element, he said the burden lay with Rosmah, on a balance of probabilities, to rebut that she had received the RM1.5 million corruptly, which again she failed to do.
To the question of whether the monies solicited and accepted were political donations to Umno (as Rosmah had said in her testimony during the trial), Zaini found that from the evidence, it was clear that the monies offered and paid were not so.
In part, he said it was a telling point against Rosmah, since in ordinary circumstances, a donation, be it by way of cheque or otherwise, is preceded by certain formalities. For example, a representative of the donor firm would personally hand it to the recipient at a proper place and in the presence of witnesses, not in some “back alley”.
He also said it was “highly odd” that Rosmah’s husband, Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak, who was Umno president, was never present when the cash was delivered, considering the “so-called donation” was meant for his (political) party.
In sentencing Rosmah, Zaini said he had considered the prosecution’s request for a heavy penalty in light of the gravity of the offences, as well as the mitigating factors submitted by the defence.
He said the foremost consideration in deciding the appropriate sentence is “public interest”.
“Our courts have a long time since progressed from the ‘eye for an eye’ and ‘tooth for a tooth’ type of justice.
“The avowed aims of punishments are retribution, justice, deterrence, reformation and protection, but it is never intended to act as a vehicle of vengeance,” he said, before passing sentence.
