The legal team representing Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman has asserted that the prosecution’s appeal against his acquittal and discharge is without merit, adding that the final decision now rests with the Federal Court.
The Muar Member of Parliament was acquitted and discharged by the Court of Appeal on June 25 last year of charges involving criminal breach of trust, abuse of position and money laundering related to Armada funds.
In a letter to the Federal Court’s deputy registrar, Syed Saddiq’s lawyers, Messrs Mustafa Ling & Co, said they would leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the three-judge panel to ensure a fair and just outcome for all parties.
The letter also referred to advice given by the President of the Court of Appeal, Datuk Abu Bakar Jais, who chaired the panel during proceedings on Dec 12.
Following oral submissions from both sides, Abu Bakar had suggested that the parties take time to reconsider their respective positions.
“Our side, with utmost respect and humility, wishes to thank the appeal panel for its sound and prudent guidance,” the letter dated Dec 18 stated.
“After reviewing the advice and consulting with the prosecution, we sincerely submit that the prosecution’s appeal in all three cases is without merit.”
Syed Saddiq’s counsel, Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, confirmed the matter to the media today.
On Dec 17, the prosecution maintained its written and oral submissions seeking to overturn the Court of Appeal’s decision.
The prosecution’s appeal, filed on Sept 22, listed 28 grounds arguing that Syed Saddiq should not have been acquitted of all four charges.
Syed Saddiq was first charged on July 22, 2021, with abetting criminal breach of trust, misuse of RM120,000, and laundering RM100,000 involving Armada funds during his tenure as Armada chief.
On Nov 9, 2023, the High Court sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment, fined him RM10 million and ordered two strokes of the rotan after finding him guilty on all charges.
However, on June 25 this year, the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, ruling that the High Court had failed to properly evaluate the evidence and the legal elements required to establish the offences.
