PROSECUTORS told the Federal Court that Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman was the architect of a scheme involving criminal breach of trust, misuse of property and money laundering linked to RM1 million in ARMADA funds.
They argued that the Court of Appeal had erred in acquitting him by selectively assessing evidence.
The Federal Court was told today that Muar Member of Parliament Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman should be held “fully responsible” for an alleged RM1 million criminal breach of trust involving the youth wing of BERSATU, Angkatan Bersatu Anak Muda (ARMADA), with the prosecution stating it was “clear and obvious” that he acted as the mastermind behind the offence.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin argued that the former ARMADA chief had directed the wing’s former assistant treasurer, Rafiq Hakim Razali, to withdraw the funds for reasons he described as “dishonest and improper”.
According to the prosecution, Rafiq testified that he would not have withdrawn the RM1 million unless he had received explicit instructions from the former Youth and Sports Minister.
Wan Shaharuddin said the testimony of the 13th prosecution witness was corroborated by the 10th, 11th and 12th witnesses, who all stated that their actions were taken on the respondent’s instructions and stemmed from directives issued by him.
The three witnesses were identified as Muhammad Naqib Ab Rahim, 32, a clothing and accessories supplier; former ARMADA exco member Abdul Hannaan Khairy; and former ARMADA assistant secretary Ahmad Redzuan Mohamed Shafi.
He argued that the Court of Appeal, which had previously acquitted and discharged Syed Saddiq, had failed to appreciate the testimonies of these witnesses, all of whom stated they had no motive to fabricate allegations against the former president of the Malaysian United Democratic Alliance (MUDA).
“These prosecution witnesses are friends of Syed Saddiq and stated that they had no motive to implicate him or to ‘add seasoning’ to their testimony. If one wishes to claim everything was orchestrated, then there must be proof of conflict. During cross-examination, Syed Saddiq himself said he had a good relationship with the witnesses.
“In fact, before the High Court trial, Rafiq met Syed Saddiq to show him a baju Melayu. Our case depends heavily on circumstantial evidence and, in this situation, we have lost the advantage because the Court of Appeal rejected much of the highly relevant testimony against the respondent,” he said.
In the continuation of his submissions, Wan Shaharuddin stressed that Syed Saddiq was also the mastermind behind the acts of abetment, misappropriation of property and money laundering involving ARMADA funds.
He said the Court of Appeal had failed to analyse the chronology of the case objectively and had not evaluated the evidence as a whole.
“Syed Saddiq is guilty of abetting by giving instructions to prosecution witness number 13 to withdraw ARMADA funds for reasons that were dishonest and improper.
“The evidence of SP13 is that he would not have withdrawn the RM1 million belonging to ARMADA had he not received instructions from the respondent to do so.
“The Court of Appeal also acknowledged that the respondent did issue instructions to SP13 to withdraw the funds, but the Court refused to consider the reasons behind those instructions,” he said.
Wan Shaharuddin submitted these arguments during the prosecution’s final appeal to overturn the acquittal granted to the former minister, who had earlier been convicted and sentenced by the High Court to seven years’ imprisonment, two strokes of the cane and a RM10 million fine.
The appeal is being heard before a three-judge panel led by Court of Appeal President Datuk Abu Bakar Jais, sitting with Federal Court judges Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali and Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah.
He further argued that the Court of Appeal had “taken the easy way out” by selectively adopting evidence that supported acquittal rather than assessing the entire evidentiary record.
“The duty of the Court of Appeal must be carried out critically, comprehensively and fairly.
“But unfortunately, the Court chose the shortcut of adopting what was argued by the respondent’s counsel, and failed to evaluate the entirety of the evidence in favour of the appellant (the prosecution).
“It is our submission that the Court of Appeal ought to have considered all prosecution evidence contained in the appeal records, not merely those it deemed convenient,” he said.
The prosecution was represented by Datuk Wan Shaharuddin, assisted by Datuk Ahmad Akram Gharib and Farah Ezlin Yusop Khan.
Syed Saddiq was represented by counsel Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, Kee Wei Lon and Lim Wei Jiet.
The hearing continues tomorrow, when the defence will present its submissions. - December 11, 2025
