PUTRAJAYA: The case of furniture company director Datuk Teo Wee Cheng, who is charged with nine counts of soliciting and accepting bribes amounting to RM12.87 million in connection with the Jana Wibawa project, will proceed with a trial at the Johor Bahru Sessions Court.
This comes after a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, led by Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, unanimously dismissed Teo’s appeal to refer legal questions concerning the constitutionality of Section 62 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act (MACC) 2009.
In his judgement, Justice Ahmad Zaidi stated that the appellant’s appeal had no merit and that the court was bound by the Federal Court’s 2017 ruling in the Lim Guan Eng case, which upheld Section 62 of the MACC Act as constitutional.
“The Federal Court, in the Lim Guan Eng case, has specifically ruled that Section of the MACC Act does not conflict with the constitution. Therefore, the appellant’s appeal is rejected,” said the judge, who sat with Justices Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan and Datuk Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin.
The legal issue at hand is whether Section 62 of the MACC Act conflicts with Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) of the Federal Constitution, as it requires the accused to submit a statement of defence before the trial, which may violate their right to remain silent and to a fair trial.
Teo filed an appeal against the decisions of the Sessions Court on March 5, 2024, and the High Court on May 28, 2024, both of which dismissed his application to refer the legal question to the Federal Court.
On two of the charges, Teo, 67, of SSH Furniture Sdn Bhd, was alleged to have solicited RM11.37 million, which is 10 per cent of the tender price for the upgrading project of the bypass from Jalan Sawah Baru to Tenang Stesyen, Segamat, worth RM39.75 million, and a road construction project from Kampung Belukar Durian to Persimpangan Felda Waha, Sedili, Kota Tinggi, worth RM74 million.
The money was alleged as a reward for helping Muar Usaha Bakti Sdn Bhd secure the project and as an inducement to agree to the appointment of TS Dynamic Construction Sdn Bhd as a sub-contractor for the project.
He was charged with committing the offences at the office of Trimetro Development Sdn Bhd, Jalan Majidi, Muar, between July 2021 and June 2022.
For the remaining seven charges, Teo, who has four children, was alleged to have received bribes from two individuals amounting to RM1.5 million as a reward for helping Muar Usaha Bakti obtain the project to upgrade the bypass and as an inducement to agree to the appointment of TS Dynamic Construction as a sub-contractor for the road project.
The offences were allegedly committed at the office of SSH Furniture, Pagoh Industrial Area, Muar, between Aug 20, 2021, and Nov 15, 2022.
The charges were framed under Section 16 (a) (A) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act (2009), which is punishable under Section 24 (1) of the law and provides imprisonment for up to 20 years and a fine of not less than five times the amount or the value of the bribe or a fine of RM10,000, whichever is higher, if found guilty.
Earlier, Teo’s counsel Datuk Tan Hock Chuan submitted that Section 62 of the MACC Act clearly infringes on his client’s right to remain silent, as it requires an accused person to disclose his defence and serve copies of any document intended as evidence before the trial begins.
“The appellant, as the accused person, has a constitutionally guaranteed right to receive a fair trial, which encapsulates his right to remain silent under Article 5 and his right to privilege against self-incrimination under Article 8 of the Federal Constitution,” he said.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Law Chin How argued that Section 62 of the MACC Act was constitutional and that submitting a defence statement to the prosecution did not exempt the defence from carrying the burden of proof.
“It is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove a prima facie case against the accused and the court will make a thorough assessment based on the testimony of relevant witnesses. Therefore, there is no issue of the accused person not getting a fair trial,” he said.
Speaking to reporters after the proceedings, Law said that the Johor Bahru Sessions Court had fixed Thursday (Jan 23) for the case mention to determine a trial date.
