The Court of Appeal today allowed Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor’s application to introduce additional evidence in her appeal against her conviction and sentence in the solar corruption case.
The unanimous decision was delivered by a three-member panel led by Datuk Azhahari Kamal Ramli, which found that the additional evidence concerning prosecution witness Rayyan Radzwill Abdullah could have a material impact on findings made by the High Court.
The panel ordered that Rayyan, the prosecution’s 16th witness, be recalled for further cross-examination and re-examination. The proceedings must take place within two weeks of the next case management.
The new evidence includes a statutory declaration by Rayyan, who was a key prosecution witness during Rosmah’s trial, as well as further oral testimony from him.
The court also directed that the additional evidence be recorded before a different Kuala Lumpur High Court judge.
The other two judges on the panel were Datuk Dr Choo Kah Sing and K. Muniandy.
Following today’s decision, the dates previously fixed for the hearing of Rosmah’s appeal have been vacated.
Rosmah had earlier filed an application at the Court of Appeal seeking permission to introduce new evidence in her appeal.
In a notice of motion dated July 21, she sought leave under Section 61 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, as well as Rules 68 and 69 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, to introduce three additional documents as evidence during the appeal hearing.
In an affidavit supporting the application, Rosmah claimed that Rayyan had been pressured into giving evidence intended to establish her guilt during the trial.
Among the documents submitted were a covering letter from Messrs Shamsuddin & Co dated July 10, a police report lodged by Rayyan on the same day, and a statutory declaration sworn by him on July 10. The statutory declaration included supporting documents, including a further affidavit dated Aug 3, 2020.
Rosmah also sought permission to recall Rayyan to provide further testimony either before the Court of Appeal or the High Court.
If allowed, she wanted the witness’s additional oral testimony to be recorded and admitted as fresh evidence in her appeal.
