Zahid's lawyer questions Mazlina's credibility; denies making her scapegoat

Defence counsel, Hamidi Mohd Noh, said that there was indeed evidence that the mess was created by Mazlina, who is the 90th prosecution witness (SP90), as reflected in the cross-examination during Ahmad Zahid's trial involving Yayasan Akalbudi funds.

"Should this court take one step further in determining her credibility as a witness, the defence submits that Mazlina is not a credible witness, due to her inconsistent representations of facts, her frailty in recollecting and describing events of the past and her demeanour during the cross-examination.

"Due to ample evidence of Mazlina being incompetent, the defence urges this court to scrutinise her evidence with great care and suspicion, to sieve through the evidence and to ascertain which part of the evidence incriminating the accused could be accepted.

"It was not our intention to make her a scapegoat; we also knew from the prosecution that she was the cause of this," he said in his submission at the end of the prosecution's case before Judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah.

Hamidi said that the defence submitted that the challenge on Mazlina's competency was made on the basis that it is her duty to manage financial matters of both Yayasan Akalbudi and the accused personally.

"Mazlina should be able to consistently account for her course of duties. Therefore, her ignorance to act fitting to her roles, should not reflect in her favour. The prosecution disregarded the fact that Mazlina admitted that she knew the stamp signature should only be used to sign bulk certificates and festival wishing cards. In spite of knowing that, Mazlina carelessly used the stamp signature for cheques," said the lawyer, adding that the prosecution seems to have ignored evidence adduced during the trial.

Hamidi also submitted that his client was a very busy man, and he left his former executive secretary (Mazlina) to handle his financial affairs.

Touching on Ahmad Zahid's criminal breach of trust (CBT) charge amounting to RM10 million given to Armada Holdings Sdn Bhd, the lawyer contended that the company had returned the money (RM10 million) together with interest in the sum of RM69,722.65 to Yayasan Akalbudi, owned by Ahmad Zahid.

Thus, he said the allegation of CBT against the accused could not stand.

On the CBT charge of utilising Yayasan Akalbudi's funds to make a "donation" worth RM1.3 million to the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) football association, the lawyer said that based on the evidence of SP19 (Datuk Zul Hisham Zainal) the intention behind the issuance of the cheque was solely for the purpose of a donation for the PDRM football association, essentially to pay the wages of the football players who were in need of financial help.

"There will be no criminal breach of trust if all the other trustees knew of the donation, and did not raise objections to said payment to the Bola Sepak PDRM," he said.

"Our response, other than the fact it was a donation which is allowed by the M&A; there is no criminal breach of trust because the trustees themselves knew about the donation to the Bola Sepak PDRM, and they knew and never raised any objections," he said.

Justice Sequerah then said that the overall intention of the donation has to be to "eradicate poverty", which is the main objective of Yayasan Akalbudi.

Hamidi replied that it is indeed poverty as they are talking about a group of football players who have not received their salary for some time, thus, eradicating poverty which is poverty of football players.

Ahmad Zahid, 68, is facing 47 charges - 12 of CBT, eight of corruption and 27 of money laundering - involving tens of millions of ringgit belonging to Yayasan Akalbudi.

The defence will continue with its submissions tomorrow.