KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 14 — Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor has claimed that the decision of the High Court Judge who meted out a 10-year jail sentence and a fine of RM970 million against her was biased and not based on proper consideration.
Rosmah, who cited 127 grounds on why the High Court erred in the judgment, claimed that Judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan’s decision was also inconsistent with the precedent in similar cases.
Rosmah, 70, filed an appeal petition to set aside the conviction and sentence handed down against her through Messrs. Akberdin & Co at the Court of Appeal yesterday.
On September 1, the High Court found Rosmah guilty of three charges of corruption with regard to a solar hybrid project worth RM1.25 billion for 369 rural schools in Sarawak, and sentenced her to 10 years in prison as well as a fine of RM970 million.
The court also ordered her to be imprisoned for 30 years if she failed to pay the fine.
In the 93-page petition document, Rosmah said the decision of the High Court Judge was also based on inaccurate conclusions and contradicted the clear evidence.
According to Rosmah, it is impossible for the High Court Judge to conclude that her defence is a mere denial, while the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against her on whether RM1.5 million that was purportedly placed in two orange-striped backpacks, had been handed over to her or otherwise.
“What’s more, the ‘butler’ who allegedly lifted the two orange-striped backpacks was not called to testify in court and this has also raised reasonable doubts about the prosecution’s case against me,” she said.
Rosmah claimed that the judge also did not consider the factors that raised reasonable doubt on the testimony of the 21st prosecution witness Datuk Rizal Mansor, that there was reasonable doubt as to whether RM5 million in two luggage bags was placed in a Velfire or an Alphard.
She claimed there was reasonable doubt when the logbook which recorded the presence of guests at Seri Perdana (the prime minister’s official residence) was not used as evidence in court, and there was also doubt when the Special Action Unit (UTK) personnel who were in the vehicle were not called as prosecution witnesses.
Rosmah also claimed that the judge had erred and misdirected himself in terms of the law and facts and failed to make the correct conclusion at the end of the prosecution’s case, thus making a wrong decision and ordering her to enter her defence on the three charges.
She claimed the judge failed to make the correct conclusion in his judgment that her defence involving Datuk Seri Najib Razak could not be accepted as evidence as the former prime minister was not called to testify.
During her defence, Rosmah claimed that she feared Najib’s wrath and never tried to influence him, let alone force or advise him on matters related to government affairs.
Rosmah claimed that the matter of fact was that Najib was on the list of prosecution witnesses, and the defence had no legal burden to call him (Najib) as a witness.
The Court of Appeal has set November 14 for case management. — Bernama
