PUTRAJAYA (May 6): Former prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s four graft charges, which were reinstated by the Court of Appeal in February, had met all the ingredients of an offence under stipulated laws, and were not ambiguous.

In a 32-page written judgment that was released on Monday, the three-member COA bench also ruled that Section 3 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009 said an “associate”, as termed in Muhyiddin’s charges, represents a political society or even a non-governmental organisation (NGO) and is not limited to companies.

Judge Datuk Hadhariah Syed Ismail, who wrote the unanimous decision, said the panel agreed with the prosecution’s argument that in the MACC Act, there is a specific Section 17 to describe commercial organisations (company or partnership). And if Section 3(c) is meant to only refer to commercial organisations, that would mean an organisation that does not carry business, such as an NGO, that receives gratification cannot be charged under Section 23 for abuse of power.

“This could not have been the intention of the Parliament. We agree with the appellant’s (prosecution’s) contention that the word “affairs” in Section 3(c) of the Act is clear and plain, and should be given its ordinary meaning, and therefore, the principle of noscitur a sociss (an unclear or ambiguous word in statute) has no application.

“It is observed the High Court judge did not make any finding on the maxis noscitor a sociss,” Hadhariah said, ruling that High Court judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin had erred in his decision to strike out the charges.

The defence had argued that the charges were made under Section 23 of the MACC Act where the term “associate” only refers to business organisations. Subsection (1) of Section 23 of the MACC Act stipulates that an officer of a public body shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to use his office or position for any gratification, whether for himself, his relative, or associate, when he makes a decision or takes any action in which such officer, or his relative or associate of his, has an interest, whether directly or indirectly.

The prosecution argued that the word “associate” includes a society and is synonymous with organisations where Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu) is considered an organisation within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the MACC Act.

Charges not ambiguous

Hadhariah, who had sat with Datuk Azmi Ariffin and Datuk SM Komathy Suppiah, also said the charges levelled against the Pagoh Member of Parliament were not ambiguous, as claimed by the High Court judge.

The High Court judge had said it was not stated in each of the four charges whether Muhyiddin “made any decision” or “took any action” for gratification, and hence the judge claimed the prosecution did not state any offence.

The COA found that the respondent (Muhyiddin) was an officer of a public body at the time, and that he had used his position to obtain gratification and used the gratification for himself, his relative, or associate.