Rosmah to know on Feb 18 whether she walks free or enters defence
Rosmah Mansor will know on Feb 18 whether she walks away or will have to enter her defence against corruption charges pertaining to soliciting an RM187.5 million bribe.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court had fixed the date after the presiding judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan heard the oral submissions from both the prosecution and defence teams today...
Rosmah Mansor will know on Feb 18 whether she walks away or will have to enter her defence against corruption charges pertaining to soliciting an RM187.5 million bribe.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court had fixed the date after the presiding judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan heard the oral submissions from both the prosecution and defence teams today.
Rosmah, the wife of former premier Najib Abdul Razak, was represented by lawyers led by Jagjit Singh and Akberdin Abdul Kader while former Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram led the prosecution team.
Rosmah is facing three counts of corruption for allegedly soliciting RM187.5 million from Jepak Holdings Sdn Bhd managing director Saidi Abang Samsudin as an inducement to help the company secure a solar project for 369 rural schools in Sarawak costing RM1.25 billion through direct negotiation with the Education Ministry.
She is also accused of receiving bribes amounting to RM6.5 million from Saidi between 2016 and 2017.
The submission saw the defence team relentlessly argue that Rosmah had never solicited the bribes which she allegedly received in a form of RM5 million and RM1.5 million in two separate bags at the Seri Perdana residence.
Jagjit claimed that it was Saidi who offered RM6.5 million as a political donation to Najib for the preparation of general election, after the arrangement made by him, his former business partner Rayyan Radzwill Abdullah and Rosmah's former aide Rizal Mansor.
He alleged that the fund was then given to Najib via Rosmah.
Rosmah, clad in green baju kurung and veil, was seen sitting in the dock and listening attentively to the submission.
If convicted, she would face a maximum 20 years' prison time and a fine of not less than five times the amount of the gratification.
Earlier, Sri Ram explained there is evidence that the accused had instructed Rizal to solicit the bribe in question.
"There is a monotonous repetition throughout the defence submission that there is evidence that the accused did not solicit any money from prosecution witness 17 (referring to Saidi).
"The charge against the accused is not that she personally solicited the bribe in question. The prosecution's case is that she did it through prosecution witness 21 (referring to Rizal).
"The defence has therefore addressed the wrong target. With respect, it is irrelevant that the accused did not solicit the bribe personally from PW 17.
"There is the evidence of PW 21 that the accused instructed him to solicit the bribe in question," he said.
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.