Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's political donation of RM2.6 billion has been used as one of the grounds to apply for the acquittal of former aide to Selangor menteri besar in 2008, Mohd Yahya Mat Sahri, at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya today.

It was used as an argument for the first time in a court of law, following a decision by attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali not to prefer any charges against Najib on Tuesday.

Lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon told a three-member bench that Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi had last month, in a Parliament Hansard, said that political donations are alright and those taking them should not be penalised.

The DPM had said in Parliament on Dec 3 that as the country followed a democratic system, the practice of accepting political donations is allowed by political parties, including the opposition.

“At the same time, Malaysia does not have any laws that say that donation or political financing needed to be declared and we do not prohibit political donations for political purposes,” Manjeet ( photo ) read the Hansard.

“In our case involving Mohd Yahya Mat Sahri, the former political aide to the Selangor menteri besar, the political donation was obtained to celebrate 100 days of (Pakatan Rakyat) rule in 2008, where the donor was identified, the recipient political party was identified (PKR) and the donor gave it willingly and testified there is no deception and confusion, and the political party prepared audited accounts.

“The money had never been used - not one sen of money - by my client,” said the former Bar Council chairperson, referring to the RM50,000 donation.

"In the RM2.6 billion donation (to Najib), the donor was never known, purpose of donation ever changing and the donation was never audited. Why the double standards (in the application of the law)."

Donor not cheated

Manjeet asked where is the crime purportedly committed by his client Mohd Yahya, whereby the donor who was the president of the Kumpulan Darul Ehsan Bhd, Abdul Karim Munisar, testified that he was not cheated in giving the RM50,000 to celebrate the 100 days of opposition rule.

"How could my client be charged under Section 420 of the Penal Code for cheating, and convicted, where there is no element of deception, and he had not used the money? Also the money still remained in the account.

"Clearly the prosecution by the Anti-Corruption Agency in 2008 was intended as a political persecution by the ACA, as the opposition had come to power," he told the court, adding that everybody celebrate 100 days in power the world over.

Manjeet also said there was no police report lodged against his client and nobody including Abdul Karim complained or lodged a report.

When asked by the court who lodged the report, the lawyer said it was the MACC and that they were told to investigate in light of the 2008 political tsunami.

“This was something malicious and vindicativeness (on their part),” he said.

This is the first time a court had heard about Apandi's non-action against Najib used as a ground for an appeal against a conviction.

It was reported that Apandi's office declined to prosecute Najib based on the MACC's investigations and that a sum of RM2.03 billion had been returned to the Saudi donor.

The donation was subjected to a probe conducted by the MACC, the police, the Public Accounts Committee regarding 1MDB, Bank Negara and the auditor-general.

Mohd Yahya was convicted by the Shah Alam High Court last year and sentenced to two years' jail and two strokes of the rotan for allegedly cheating Abdul Karim.

The former aide to then menteri besar Khalid Ibrahim was first acquitted by the Shah Alam Sessions Court in Oct 2013.

Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim who led the bench deferred the delivering of the decision today and said the verdict will be given in March. This is Mohd Yahya's last chance of appeal.

The other judges in the panel were Court of Appeal judge Abdul Rahman Sebli and High Court judge Harminder Singh.

Accused did not submit documents

Meanwhile, MACC's DPP Ahmad Shazalee Abdul Khairi told the bench that besides asking the sentence on cheating to remain, they are also appealing over Mohd Yahya's acquittal of using a forged document as a true document under Section 471 of the Penal Code.

The fact of the matter was, the prosecutor said, Abdul Karim had instructed his officer to prepare a cheque for that amount upon receiving a letter from Mohd Yahya.

“The request for donation from the company is hidden from the chairperson of the organising committee of the 100 days celebration,” he said, adding that the accused had control and owned the account despite of it being named under PKR.

Furthermore, Shazalee said the state government had already allocated a sum of RM313,000 for the celebration.

He told the court that former PKR state treasurer Maria Pillai had testified that she never issued a letter of support to the accused to open another party account, and this was also verified by Khalid who also took the stand against his former aide.

“They testified that the party resolution, as to the minutes of the meeting, was to open a new account with Maybank," Shazalee added.

However, the prosecutor agreed that Mohd Yahya did not submit the documents to the bank.

This led the judges to ask if he did not submit the documents, how can he be charged for using forged documents.

Manjeet, in reply to the cross appeal on Section 471, said the Sessions Court found it unsafe to convict his client and the Court of Appeal should retain this, as a vital prosecution witness who purportedly handed the documents to the bank was not called to testify, and failed to be detected.