'Sessions judge didn't err assessing evidence in ex-Sports Ministry officer's case'

KUALA LUMPUR: The prosecution argues that the Sessions Court judge who convicted former Youth and Sports Ministry officer Otman Arsahd on 96 counts did not make a mistake in evaluating the evidence, even though he took over the trial after another judge. Deputy public prosecutor Mohd Ashrof Adrin Kamarul stated that the judge clearly indicated in his grounds of judgment that he had taken into account the evidence of witnesses who testified before his predecessor.

He noted that the judge referred to the evidence multiple times in the grounds of judgment, as evidenced by passages stating that these witnesses had given evidence prior to his assuming the case. Ashrof was countering the defense claim that the judge had not properly assessed the evidence because he did not personally witness much of the prosecution's evidence, as 70 witnesses testified.

Although he did not observe the demeanor of the witnesses from SP1 (the first prosecution witness) to SP63, the judge reiterated their testimony in his grounds of judgment, he explained during Otman's appeal hearing before High Court judge Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin. Otman received a 15-year prison sentence and a fine of RM284.2 million in 2023 after being found guilty of multiple counts of abuse of power, false claims, and receiving proceeds from unlawful activities.

Ashrof argued that Section 261 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) gave the succeeding judge the power to recall witnesses if necessary. He maintained that the judge was not required to recall the witnesses unless such a request was made, which Otman's lawyers did not do. Ashrof also dismissed the claim that the judge had failed to consider the entire evidence.

He pointed out that the judge had explicitly mentioned in several paragraphs of the judgment that he had considered both the prosecution and defense evidence and evaluated the defense case against the prosecution's evidence. Ashrof emphasized that the length of a judgment does not automatically mean the judge evaluated the evidence correctly; it should be based on whether the judgment covers all relevant issues.

He concluded that the judge had fairly assessed the evidence and fairly decided on all the issues, and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. Otman's lawyer, Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali, had earlier argued that his client received an unfair trial due to the Sessions Court's improper evaluation of the prosecution's evidence. After hearing both sides, Noor Ruwena scheduled the decision on the appeal for November 18 and requested more time to review the extensive documents.

In July 2023, judge Kamarudin Kamsun convicted Otman of 96 charges. The judge sentenced Otman, who was the finance division secretary, to a total of 243 years of imprisonment and a fine of RM190 million for the offences involving false claims. For abuse of position, he received 85 years in prison and RM10.8 million in fines (defaulting on a further 119 months).

For receiving proceeds from unlawful activities, Otman was given prison terms ranging from three months to 11 years, along with a fine of RM83.4 million (defaulting on 934 months).