KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 26 — A purported document relating to a judgment on Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor’s solar hybrid graft trial was found to have been leaked today on fugitive blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin’s website.
The three-page document was published on the Malaysia Today portal run by Raja Petra, titled; “Rosmah Mansor will be pronounced guilty on 1st September 2022”.
The decision for Rosmah’s solar hybrid graft trial at the High Court is scheduled to be delivered on September 1.
According to Raja Petra, the alleged guilty verdict was not written by the trial judge but on behalf of the trial judge by persons unknown.
“The judge’s job is just to deliver the verdict next week,” he said.
Another article on the portal, titled “Download Or View The 71-Page Judgement And Guilty Verdict On Rosmah Mansor Here” allowed users to access the purported document in its full version.
Further checks on the leaked document showed it was prepared by the Research Unit of the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
At the time of writing, the Office of the Chief Registrar of the Federal Court of Malaysia has yet to issue any official statement over the purported leak.
Kuala Lumpur police chief Datuk Azmi Abu Kassim was later quoted by news portal MalaysiaGazette as urging parties to lodge a report in relation to the leaked documents for an investigation to commence.
Rosmah, the wife of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, is charged with soliciting RM187.5 million in bribes from contractor Saidi Abang Samsudin in 2016 and 2017 so that his company Jepak Holdings Sdn Bhd can secure a RM1.25 billion government project to supply electricity to 369 rural schools in Sarawak.
She is also accused of receiving bribes totalling RM6.5 million from Saidi.
Last week, court officials lodged a police report over the leaked draft judgment in relation to former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s final appeal at the Federal Court.
In a similar fashion, the alleged leaked documents were published on Raja Petra’s portal, with the Office of the Chief Registrar of the Federal Court of Malaysia insisting that it was a draft judgment that had not been finalised yet, and that the document had been modified.
