PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal today upheld former Sabah Infrastructure Development Minister Datuk Peter Anthony’s conviction and sentence of three years imprisonment and RM50,000 fine for falsifying documents related to a maintenance and service contract at Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) 11 years ago.
This followed a decision by a panel of three Court of Appeal judges, comprising Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan and Datuk Azmi Ariffin in dismissing Peter’s appeal against his conviction and sentence handed down by the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on May 26, 2022.
The court ordered the Melalap Assemblyman to serve the sentence from today.
Peter, 54, filed the appeal to overturn his conviction and three-year prison sentence, along with a fine of RM50,000 on April 19, 2023.
The appeal was dismissed by the High Court on April 18, 2023, making this his final appeal.
Peter had paid the fine.
He was charged in his capacity as managing director of Syarikat Asli Jati Sdn Bhd with forging a letter from the office of UMS Deputy Vice-Chancellor, dated June 9, 2014, by inserting a false statement to use it for fraudulent purposes.
The offence was allegedly committed at the office of the Prime Minister’s principal private secretary at the Perdana Putra building in Putrajaya between June 13 and Aug 21, 2014.
Justice Mohamed Zaini when reading out the judgment said the appellate court should not alter the factual findings of the lower court unless those findings are shown to be incorrect.
“This is especially important when the conclusions depend heavily on the credibility of the witnesses and the impressions formed by the court that directly observed and assessed their honesty and accuracy.
“We are convinced that the Sessions Court provided a thorough judicial evaluation of the evidence, and we find no errors that would justify intervention by the appellate court.
Therefore, we conclude that the conviction of the accused is sound. We dismiss the appellant’s appeal and uphold the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court,“ he said.
Justice Mohamed Zaini said the appellate court also concurred with the Sessions Court’s determination that the appellant had forged the letter to commit fraud and deceived third prosecution witness (SP3) Mohd Shukur Mohd Din, SP8 (former UMS deputy vice-chancellor (Academic and International) Professor Dr Shariff Abdul Kadir S. Omang) and SP9 (former UMS Registrar Datuk Abdullah Mohd Said) into believing that the letter was related to the Smart Partnership project.
“Additionally, the court found that the appellant used the letter to mislead SP12 (Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak) into thinking that he had UMS’s support for securing the M&E (Mechanical and Electrical Systems) contract through direct negotiations for five years, despite the contract already been awarded to REMT through an open tender process.
“We also agree with the court’s finding that it was sufficient to demonstrate that the appellant forged the letter with the intent to commit fraud, and it was unnecessary to prove that he succeeded in achieving his fraudulent aims,“ he said.
The judge also said the court concurred with the Sessions Court’s finding that the appellant was aware that the M&E contract went through an open tender process, as the company participated as one of the bidders.
“SP1 (former vice-chancellor UMS Professor Datuk Dr Mohd Harun Abdullah) testified that the appellant reprimanded him when their company was not awarded Phase 2B of the M&E contract. The Sessions Court appropriately considered the appellant’s subsequent behaviour as a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act 1950,“ he added.
Justice Mohamed Zaini said the lower court had carefully analysed the appellant’s defence, specifically the testimonies of the second defence witness (SD2 - Peter’s personal assistant, Imy Christopher) and SD3 (digital forensics manager at Siaga Informatics Sdn Bhd, Nurul Aiman Azmail).
“SD2 claimed that SP3 (Mohd Shukur) had never visited the appellant’s office or met her and that the office computer could only be accessed with a password. However, the court correctly dismissed these defences as mere denials and afterthoughts, noting that these issues were not raised during the investigation or presented to the prosecution’s witnesses, particularly SP3 and the Investigating Officers.
“The Sessions Court did not err in concluding that the appellant’s failure to present his defence at the earliest opportunity indicated that it was an afterthought. This further reinforced the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses,“ he said.
The judge said the appellant’s claim that he did not visit (Najib’s former principal private secretary who is now deceased) Datuk Azlin Alias’s office on June 13, 2014, was denied.
“The Sessions Court found this to be unconvincing as the testimonies of SP3 and SP8 indicated that the appellant did visit the office. This was further supported by the presence of Datuk Azlin’s office stamp on the letter, which is dated June 13, 2014.
“The Sessions Court also favoured SP8 testimony which stated that he accompanied the appellant, who entered the office to meet with Datuk Azlin alone, carrying the letter. The court recognised that the appellant personally knew Datuk Azlin and had access to SP12 (Najib).
“Additionally, the appellant acknowledged that SP3, SP8, and SP9 sought to leverage his close relationship with Datuk Azlin to gain support for the Smart Partnership project. In light of these factors, we are of the opinion that the Sessions Court’s conclusions are well-founded,“ he said.
Justice Mohamed Zaini said the court also found that the testimony by Dr Shariff, who claimed he signed the letter without reviewing its content because he relied on SP3, was credible.
he claimed he signed the letter without reviewing its content because he relied on SP3, and this was not deemed inherently implausible.
“Furthermore, the court believes there was no motive for SP8 to act dishonestly, considering his age and position at UMS and it seemed unlikely he would risk his status. We see no reason to disturb these findings,“ he said.
Regarding the sentence imposed on the appellant, the judge said the prosecution has requested to increase both the imprisonment term and the fine, while the appellant seeks a reduced sentence.
“A sentence from the lower courts should only be altered if it is found to be manifestly excessive or insufficient. We believe that the Sessions Court appropriately considered all relevant factors before arriving at its decision and see no reason to disturb it,“ he added.
Lawyer Datuk Nicholas Kow Eng Chuan, represented Peter, while deputy public prosecutors Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin and Haresh Prakash Somiah represented the respondent.
Peter was sent to Kajang Prison to serve the sentence.
