KUALA LUMPUR, March 3 — Umno president Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi today apologised to the High Court, ahead of the judge’s decision on whether to allow contempt of court proceedings against him.

Zahid, who prepared a handwritten note for his apology that he read out, said he did not mean to mislead the court with his reason yesterday when he sought a one-day postponement of his trial.

“Yang Arif, I agree with all the explanations given by my learned lawyer and I openly apologise for this confusion and misunderstanding.

“And I don’t intend at all to mislead this court, and I am very respectful of Yang Arif and respectful of this honourable court. Once again I apologise for the confusion,” he said to the judge while standing up from the accused’s dock.

Advertisement

Zahid also explained that he was unable to produce the invitation letter and letter regarding his meeting yesterday with the prime minister’s political secretary, as the latter has yet to be appointed officially and could not issue such letters to verify that a meeting took place.

“Yang Arif, I also wish to explain Yang Arif’s order yesterday about the letter. I already contacted that political secretary, as there has yet to be an official appointment and oath-taking, therefore the letter that asked me to come and the letter that state that meeting had been held, but it is with that officer, as the appointment and oath-taking had not been done,” he said.

Zahid was yesterday asked to produce such letters before the judge decides whether to allow contempt proceedings against Zahid.

Advertisement

Earlier this morning, Zahid’s lawyer Hisyam Teh Poh Teik said that Zahid had intended to meet with Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, but was “late to Putrajaya” and had met instead with Muhyiddin’s political secretary.

“In fact there was a meeting between the accused and the political secretary. Yesterday also the accused person tendered notes to collaborate his version that in fact there was a meeting,” Hisyam said, referring to the notes taken down of the meeting between Zahid and the political secretary.

“With the benefit of hindsight, My Lord, perhaps the accused person could have been more precise. There is a difference between intended to meet and scheduled meeting. These are two separate things. With clarity, My Lord, this whole episode could be avoided,” Hisyam said, adding that there is nothing unusual for Zahid as leader of the political party Umno to propose to meet with the prime minister to discuss state affairs.

“My Lord, I emphasise again that the accused person has got no intention whatsoever to mislead this honourable court,” he said, also pointing to case law saying that benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

“My Lord, in this case I also have instructions taken that the accused person has the highest of respect to the court and My Lord. This can be seen by the conduct of the accused person. At every trial date, the accused person is present much earlier than the appointed time except for one day,” he said, referring to a day where Zahid was slightly late due to the traffic.

“The accused will apologise for this misunderstanding, never intention to make mockery of the court...or to take advantage of My Lord’s patience,” he said.

“This whole episode resulted as perhaps a miscommunication between client and counsel, and based on authority cited, My Lord can deal with this situation with other alternative remedy by way of accepting apology made by the accused person,” Hisyam said when arguing against Zahid being cited for contempt.

Deputy public prosecutor Datuk Raja Rozela Raja Toran, who is leading the prosecution against Zahid, responded by accusing Zahid of “making up stories that there was a letter” and misleading the court.

She pointed out that Zahid had yesterday “insisted there was a letter issued by the Prime Minister’s Office”, while also noting that he had said today that he is not able to produce the letter.

She said the court has to determine if Zahid had been disrespectful to the court or had tried to mislead the court by portraying that he had a good reason to ask for the trial to be postponed.

“Clearly from his explanation, he never had a good reason. The reason given by him yesterday through his counsel is not substantiated at all.

“There was never a meeting with the prime minister, that was said to court in open court and because of that, I submit there is a contempt,” she said, adding that the court can exercise its powers to impose summary judgment and issue an order of committal against Zahid for contempt.

Hisyam however replied that Zahid had apologised for the confusion and misunderstanding that occurred, saying that it takes “great humility” for him to make an apology in open court.

“Very certain that this will never happen again,” Hisyam said, arguing that an apology is “good enough” and that the court need not cite Zahid for contempt.

What the judge decided

After hearing the apology from Zahid as well as the arguments from lawyers on both sides, High Court judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah later decided that no case of contempt has been found against Zahid, but also gave a stern general warning that the court will not tolerate any attempts to mislead the court and that anyone who tries to mislead the court will be punished with fine or imprisonment.

The judge said he accepted Hisyam’s explanation that there could have been a miscommunication when Zahid was instructing his lawyers regarding the trial postponement request, also accepting the explanation that a wrong choice of words used by Zahid’s lawyers when seeking for the postponement may have resulted in the misunderstanding.

“I also take into account the sincere apology by the accused that there was a misunderstanding. And of no less importance was the undertaking by the accused’s counsel that this would not occur again I find no case for contempt to be made out,” the judge said.

Yesterday’s controversy

Yesterday morning, the High Court allowed Zahid’s lawyers’ request to have the ongoing trial postponed to today, instead of resuming as scheduled yesterday to allow him to meet Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin for negotiations to form a new Cabinet.

At that time, Zahid did not present any documents during the court proceedings to back his reason for seeking the postponement of the trial.

But the Prime Minister’s Office subsequently issued a statement to say that Muhyiddin was yesterday only scheduled to meet the Chief Secretary to the Government and heads of government agencies, and that he did not have any scheduled meetings with political leaders yesterday.

Following the Prime Minister’s Office’s statement, the High Court yesterday afternoon called the case up for mention in the afternoon to seek clarification over the matter.

The prosecution yesterday afternoon accused Zahid of making a “blatant lie” and intentionally misleading the court to get a day off, urging the court to initiate contempt proceedings against Zahid for allegedly lying to the court.

Zahid’s lawyer Hisyam Teh Poh Teik yesterday afternoon told the judge that the defence had never intended to deceive or mock the court, asserting that his client did attempt to meet Muhyiddin yesterday but was unable to do so as the prime minister was rushing to Muar, Johor, and that he met with Muhyiddin’s aide instead.

Zahid yesterday afternoon also told the court that he did receive a letter from the Prime Minister’s Office requesting him to present himself at around 12.30pm for a discussion.

The judge had yesterday afternoon asked Zahid to produce the letter today in court, before the judge decides on whether to allow contempt proceedings against Zahid.

Yesterday was initially scheduled to be the 19th day of Ahmad Zahid’s trial involving 47 charges related to alleged bribery, criminal breach of trust and money laundering, with the prosecution saying yesterday morning that it was ready to continue trial with five prosecution witnesses ready to testify.