THE Shah Alam High Court on September 23 acquitted Umno president Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi of taking bribes from Ultra Kirana Sdn Bhd, the company awarded a government contract for a foreign visa system.
Judge Datuk Mohd Yazid Mustafa said the prosecution failed to successfully prove a prima facie case against Zahid, who is also the Bagan Datuk incumbent MP, on all 40 bribery charges.
On Friday, the high court acquitted and discharged lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah on two counts of money laundering involving RM9.5 million, allegedly received from former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, and for making false declarations to the Inland Revenue Board.
Judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin made the ruling after finding the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against Shafee, 70, at the end of its case.
On the same day, another high court judge called for Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman to enter his defence on charges of abetting in criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of assets, and money laundering.
“After careful consideration I found the prosecution has proven there is a prima facie case and I call the accused to enter his defence,” said judicial commissioner Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid.
So, what is a prima facie case?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “prima facie” as “at first sight; on the face of it; as appears at first without investigation; arising at first sight; based or founded on the first impression”.
In common parlance, the term is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation.
In law, it is used both as an adjective and as an adverb. As an adjective, as in the term “prima facie evidence”, it means “sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted”.
As an adverb, as in the term “prima facie case”, it means “on first appearance, but subject to further evidence or information” (see Abdul Rani Kamaruddin, “Prima Facie under Common Law and the Shariah Law in Criminal Cases” Journal of Islamic Law Review, Vol. 17, No. 2, July 2021).
More than 80 years ago, appellate judge Gordon-Smith adopted the legal definition of prima facie case in Mozley and Whiteley’s Law Dictionary (5th Ed.) and said that a “litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favour is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it”.
A prima facie case, then, is one which is established by sufficient evidence and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced by the other side (see Public Prosecutor v Chin Yoke [1940]).
There has been much confusion since on what the term means under our law. However, the learned trial judge, the late justice Augustine Paul (as he then was), in the high-profile case of Public Prosecutor v Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (No 3) (1999) was able to illuminate the term as follows:
“A prima facie case arises when the evidence in favour of a party is sufficiently strong for the opposing party to be called on to answer. The evidence adduced must be such that it can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence by the other side.
“Taken in its totality, the force of the evidence must be such that, if unrebutted, it is sufficient to induce the court to believe in the existence of the facts stated in the charge or to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that those facts existed or did happen.
“As this exercise cannot be postponed to the end of the trial, a maximum evaluation of the credibility of witnesses must be done at the close of the case for the prosecution before the court can rule that a prima facie case has been made out in order to call for the defence”.
The term is now embodied in Section 173(h)(iii) and Section 180(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code where it is stated that “a prima facie case is made out against the accused where the prosecution has adduced credible evidence proving each ingredient of the offence which if unrebutted or unexplained would warrant a conviction”.
Simply put, a prima facie case means that there is a case for the accused to answer upon the evidence that had been adduced by the prosecution. The evidence is credible, proving each ingredient of the offence.
This explains why there is mounting pressure for politicians to sit out the coming 15th general election (GE15) pending ongoing court cases where a prima facie case has been made out by the prosecution and defence called by the court.
It’s a matter of principle. – The Vibes, October 31, 2022
Hafiz Hassan reads The Vibes
