Former MP fails in appeal against conviction and fine
Posted on February 22, 2012, Wednesday
KOTA KINABALU: Former Labuan Member of Parliament Datuk Suhaili Abdul Rahman failed in his motion at the Federal Court here to review a Court of Appeal’s decision in relation with his conviction and fine of RM10,000 for an offence under the Bankruptcy Act.
Chief judge Justice Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria, chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Tan Sri Richard Malanjum and Federal Court judge Justice Dato Bentara Luar Dato Hashim Dato Haji Yusoff yesterday dismissed the said motion.
The three judges reached the unanimous decision after hearing arguments from Suhaili’s counsel Rakhbir Singh and reply from Deputy Public Prosecutor Ahmad Bache.
Suhaili was applying by motion for the court to review the Court of Appeal’s decision on Jan 12, which disallowed his motion to review the decision of another Court of Appeal which reinstated his conviction and the fine handed down by the Sessions Court two years ago.
Earlier, Rakhbir informed the court that the Court of Appeal in dismissing Suhaili’s motion ruled that they did not have the jurisdiction to hear the merit on whether Suhaili was wrongly or correctly convicted of the offence.
However, he pointed out that based on the decision of the Federal Court recently, the Court of Appeal can review its own decision.
He said the Federal Court also has the power to review any order or decision given not only by the Federal Court itself but also extend to that of the Court of Appeal.
In his rebuttal, Ahmad informed the court that under Section 87 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, it clearly spelt out that the Federal Court only have jurisdiction to deal with matters that originates from the High Court.
As this matter originates from the Sessions Court, Ahmad submitted the Federal Court have no jurisdiction and power to deal with Suhaili’s application.
“The final forum of appeal for this application is the Court of Appeal,” Ahmad stressed.
He further submitted that Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court is not applicable for Suhaili’s application.
“It is meant for application for review on decision already made by the Federal Court such as to request this court to review its own decision. As there was no decision made by this court, hence there was nothing before this court to review. Hence it is a non-starter,” he added.
The Court of Appeal had on June 20, last year overturned the High Court’s decision which set aside Suhaili’s conviction and sentence for failing to declare his bankruptcy status in a bank loan application more than 16 years ago.
In allowing the prosecution’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court was wrong in its decision as the criminal offence was still subsist although Suhaili’s bankruptcy status was annulled later after that.
“The Sessions Court’s decision in convicting and imposing the fine on the respondent (Suhaili) reinstated,” the Court of Appeal ruled and ordered Suhaili to pay the RM10,000 fine.
Suhaili then filed a motion to review the said Court of Appeal’s decision but was rejected when it was heard by another Court of Appeal on the Jan 12.
He subsequently applied for another motion to review the decision to the Federal Court and was heard yesterday.
On March 10, 2010, Suhaili, 48, was fined RM10,000 in default one month’s jail by Sessions Court judge Duncan Sikodol after the former pleaded guilty to acting as a guarantor for a RM110,000 loan and a RM50,000 overdraft sought by Syarikat Saraequity Sdn Bhd to buy an apartment on the second floor of Api-Api Centre here without informing Malayan Banking Berhad Kota Kinabalu Branch that he was a bankrupt.
The charge stated that Suhaili had committed the offence at the bank’s premises on April 3, 1996.
He was charged under Section 109 (1) (m) (iii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1967 which provides for a jail term of up to two years or a fine, or both.
On March 16, the same year, Suhaili filed a notice of appeal and a motion at the High Court for revision against his conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court.
On Sept 27, 2010, the High Court set aside Suhaili’s conviction and sentence and ordered the fine paid by the latter to be returned.
The High Court ruled that the bankruptcy of Suhaili was annulled because he should not have been adjudged bankrupt in the first place.
“In the situation it would clearly be wrong to prosecute the appellant for an alleged bankruptcy offence,” the High Court judge said.
