FORMER Sabah infrastructure development minister Datuk Peter Anthony will remain behind bars after the Court of Appeal (COA) unanimously rejected his application for a review of his conviction in a 2014 document falsification case involving a Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) contract.
The three-member panel, led by COA judge Datuk Azman Abdullah, ruled that there had been no breach of natural justice, and that the court had thoroughly addressed the issues raised during his previous appeal.
"Our assumption has been supported by the COA's full grounds of judgement, where the issue was discussed carefully. It is not the court's duty to re-hear the evidence or reassess facts already decided on.
"There is no breach of justice as the applicant was given the right to be heard. We find no merit in this application. The application is rejected," The Edge cited Azman saying.
The panel also included Justices Datuk Noorin Badaruddin and Datuk Hayatul Akmal Abdul Aziz.
Peter, 54, was convicted in 2022 of forging a letter of support to help his company, Syarikat Asli Jati Sdn Bhd, secure a service and maintenance contract at UMS — despite the project already being awarded to REMT Utama Sdn Bhd through open tender. His company was already involved in another project with the university.
He was sentenced to three years in prison and fined RM50,000 by the Sessions Court. Both the High Court in April 2023 and the Court of Appeal in March 2025 upheld the conviction, after which Peter began serving his sentence.
With all legal avenues now exhausted, Peter, who is the current Melalap assemblyman, is expected to lose his seat in the Sabah State Legislative Assembly. No formal announcement has yet been made by the assembly.
Central to Peter’s review application was a police report lodged by UMS’s then-deputy vice-chancellor, the late Mohd Shukur Mohd Din — a prosecution witness — who claimed that his initial statement to investigators had been made under duress. The report, only discovered after the trial concluded, was accepted as fresh evidence at the appeal stage.
Peter’s legal team, led by Mohd Haniff Khatri Abdulla, argued that the omission of this report in the broad grounds of judgement issued in March 2025 constituted a denial of natural justice.
"Our argument is that the right to be heard is not limited to merely being heard; the arguments must also be considered," Haniff said.
However, the panel noted that the matter had been addressed in the full grounds of judgement, released on 1 August.
"It is difficult for us to assume that this issue was not considered simply because it was not elaborated in the broad grounds," Azman said, adding that it had been one of the key points debated during the appeal.
The prosecution, led by Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, countered that Peter’s application did not meet the legal threshold for a review.
"This is not a limited or special case. The police report was argued at length during the appeal, and the applicant was not prevented from raising it. The panel today should not be made to rehear the matter," he submitted.
In its 24-page written grounds, the Court of Appeal questioned why Mohd Shukur only lodged the police report a year after giving his statement to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
"\[Mohd Shukur] could have maintained the claims in his police report during the trial, but it was evident he did not. Whether he told the truth when implicating the appellant would have been tested under cross-examination — even without the report," the judgement read.
The court further noted that the conviction was not solely based on Mohd Shukur’s testimony but was supported by multiple witness accounts and corroborative evidence. - August 20, 2025
.jpg)
.jpg)
