MACC prosecutors in former Selangor MB Mohd Khir Toyo's graft case were grilled by the three-member appellate court panel led by Justice Abu Samah Nordin for nearly three hours today on perceived problems with the wording of their charge against him.

The team led by federal prosecutor Abdul Wahab Mohamed, was asked why the charge named him as Selangor MB and mentioned the offence in his duty as Menteri Besar, when the facts of the case point toward his duties as Selangor State Development Corporation (PKNS) chairperson being the activity in question.

Abdul Wahab was presenting his oral submission in answer to the submission delivered by Khir's legal team earlier in the morning.

NONE Such a disconnect, the judges pointed out, did not correlate with the offense being prosecuted and that the words "while as MB and SEDC chairperson" should had been in the charge to make it specific.

Abdul Wahab ( left ) however stood fast in his argument that official duties as MB includes his role as chairperson of various state bodies, although this was called into question not only in the earlier submission by Khir's lawyers in the appeal this morning, but also by all three judges on the panel.

The prosecutor also contended that Khir indeed was a civil servant at the material time as Section 21(i) of the penal code describes a civil servant as an officer or official that works for the state and paid by the state to conduct the executive functions of the state.

Khir's lawyers had said in their submission that the MB cannot fall under the description of a civil servant and as such the charge cannot be levelled against him.

Meanwhile, taking over from Abdul Wahab, DPP Masri Mohd Daud argued that the order they obtained to seize the properties involved in the case was necessary as it involved public interest and the punishment needs to be a deterrent and to show that the will of the court to prosecute corruption cases.

The prosecution had obtained a court order for the government to seize the property Khir gained from the graft he was accused of during his conviction.

Wording of seizure order questioned

Abu Samah, however, questioned the wording of the order which he said failed to provide specific direction on how the property which belonged to both Khir and his wife will be seized as the convicted person here is only the former MB and as such only his share needs be confiscated, something which the order did not contain instructions on how to determine which portion for the government to seize.

He also questioned Section 36 of the Anti Corruption Act which allowed the seizure of assets related to graft cases as it may be open to abuse.

Abu Samah contended that the section which requires only a charge and not a conviction for the prosecution to obtain the seizure order can be levelled at anyone just by charging them in court, an order can be obtained to seize their assets as a conviction is not needed.

Khir is appealing his conviction under Section 165 of the Penal Code for misusing his influence in accordance with his post as a civil servant to obtain an object of value for less than its worth.

Khir was convicted on Dec 24 last year, with corruption for obtaining for himself and his wife Zahrah Kechik, two lots of land and a house at No 8 & 10, Jalan Suasa 7/1L, from Ditamas Sdn Bhd director Shamsuddin Hayroni, at RM3.5 million in 2007, compared to the RM6.5 million Ditamas paid for it in 2004.

After hearing the submission from the respondents and Khir's lawyers, the three-member panel then said that they will require time for deliberation and shall sit again on Sept 28 at 3pm to render their decision.