逐鹿问鼎：慕沙哈山是个骗子！

「这涉及由控方传招的证人之诚信评估。他的证据不可靠可以不予理会，而他在法庭上所说的一切和他的不诚信有关。我完全同意该案件在答辩时所谓的PW75（全国总警长慕沙哈山）缺乏有力证据这一点直接造成他的不诚信。有基于此，我必须申明PW75所提供的证据给予他人的印象是与PW17、PW19、PW57及PW73的证词有所冲突。无论如何我发现PW75在此案件的证据是不可靠及不可取的。」

「这涉及由控方传招的证人之诚信评估。他的证据不可靠可以不予理会，而他在法庭上所说的一切和他的不诚信有关。我完全同意该案件在答辩时所谓的PW75（全国总警长慕沙哈山）缺乏有力证据这一点直接造成他的不诚信。有基于此，我必须申明PW75所提供的证据给予他人的印象是与PW17、PW19、PW57及PW73的证词有所冲突。无论如何我发现PW75在此案件的证据是不可靠及不可取的。」这是法庭的意见。

这些都不是我说的。这些是亚庇梳邦连（Supang Lian）推事庭庭长在他的90页的判词中的文字，他说明马来西亚总警长慕沙哈山缺乏诚信及不可信赖，被为马来西亚首相纳吉列为莫须有的提控一案，拿督蓝利尤索夫（Dato’ Ramli Yusuff）必须被宣判无罪。（请参阅以下大马反贪委员会(MACC)上诉记录第1664，1664, 1665, 1686, 1698, 1740, 1744及1745页）

就如被许多文章及特别报道揭发过无数次的一样，总警长慕沙哈山要除掉蓝利尤索夫。其中一个他这么做的原因是要确保在2007年8月他退休前无人能取代他的总警长一职。第二是因为蓝利发现了总警长与华人地下卖淫业、非法赌博、大耳窿及贩毒集团的联系。在这之前《今日大马》早就刊登了许多由黑社会人物和警员，包括他本身的参谋长等签署的法定宣誓书。

全国总警长、总检察长及反贪会这邪恶的三剑客捏造了一些控状对付蓝利--包括让蓝利有机会登上警方塞斯纳私人飞机『逍遥游』的莫须有指控——目的只是要除掉他。

以下的判决摘录显示，当天蓝利事实上是在执行公务，而非『把法律握在手中』※，就如同司法界同仁所形容的那样。蓝利当时实际上正在巡视沙巴沿海地带。而且，如果参考昨日新闻中，美国政府发出的公民旅游警告，呼吁其国民在旅游沙巴时提高警惕，因为他们认为旅客会受到恐怖袭击。（继续阅读：【美国大使馆对沙巴发警告　恐怖组织计划袭击外国人】）

※ 原文『on a frolic of his own』是一本畅销书的书名，作者是威廉·盖迪斯（William Gaddis），这本法律小说中文译名为《诉讼游戏》，目前无中文译本。《诉讼游戏》是威廉·盖迪斯的第四本小说，出版于1994年，并在同年获得全美图书奖（ American Book Award）及全国图书奖（National Book Award）。威廉在书中开宗明义的说：「公理？你可以在来世看到公理，这一世，你只有法律。」威廉的看法中，『公理』（justice）的理论，是一套美好及有条不紊的系统，一个完美的系统，不仅可以减低混乱（chaos），同时也可以避免不确定性（contingency）的产生。可是，在现实中的法律界，确充斥着术语和诡辩，威廉称之为『病态嘉年华』（a carnival of disorder）。

就像在安华案一样，他们修改了对蓝利的控状，因为来自机师（后期才出庭的编号PW69和PW73证人）的证词中，显示了蓝利当时的确是在Den Haven普通行动旅驻扎地点的上空和沿海地带进行保安巡视，而不可能出现在他被控说有利益关系的那片地皮上空。

在拼命挣扎下，副检察司凯文莫莱斯（Kevin Anthony Morais）修改控状，他把『利用飞机巡视那片土地』改为『促使飞机改变航线，飞到邻近的土地』。只有凯文自己知道它的实质意义。看来这宗案件比一宗谋杀案更加严重，因为凯文提呈了75名证人，只是为了证明蓝利在未经授权下，坐飞机兜风。

全国总警长慕沙哈山（编号PW75证人）当时是反贪污局所谓的『最有力证人』（Star Witness）。是的！这只哈巴狗也出现在蓝利的审讯中，对蓝利而言，真的是『荣幸非常』。可是，慕沙哈山的证词反反复复，就连推事庭庭长也觉得他的话不可信。尽管严厉的判词已经做出，凯文却不甘败诉，卷尾而逃，反而对蓝利被无罪释放进行上诉。

反贪污局顾问团应该调查这件事，以免反贪委变得更在没有信誉，把已经像个傻子的反贪委变得里外不是人。

很明显的，凯文还死性不改，在罗斯里达兰（Rosli Dahlan）他现在坐在证人席中，仿佛『最有力证人』似的，在众人的目光下，他在法庭中被撕成碎片、剥个清光。在法庭中大家哄堂大笑，连法官都不禁掩嘴，看着凯文像只缩在角落的流浪狗——我向全世界的动物爱好者先说声抱歉。

凯文现在应该被弹劾，同时被援引伪造呈堂证供被处置。

这是否就是凯文放长假的原因呢？——这样他就可以圆谎，『重新安排』他的故事？

罗斯里达兰的审讯将会延期到2010年5月31日，预期到时凯文会再次的把他的裤裆扭成一团，到时律师们会要求弹劾，并援引伪造呈堂证供的罪名，把他送去坐牢。可是，我觉得呆在牢里，让其他囚犯『洗』他屁股，对于凯文这种人而言，那是最大的乐趣。

×××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××

检控官 对 蓝利尤索夫（G/5594）

有关你，身为一名公共机构，也即是警察委员会官员，编号G/5594，担任吉隆坡武吉阿曼商业刑事调查局总监，在2007年6月15日，大约在上午7时50 分左右，于沙巴亚庇丹絨亞路①区的沙巴州警察空援组②，利用公职获取报酬③，也即是你曾经发出命令，利用大马皇警拥有的塞斯那『凯旋』CE 208-9M-PSQ型④飞机，你和两位公众人士，拿督莫哈默雅兴⑤及卡立莫哈默⑥，对位于拿笃⑦乌鲁东古⑧的一片编号为 PT 2003110300 和 PT 2003110332 的地皮进行视察，（这块地皮）与金沙再也私人有限公司⑨有利益关系，而你在该家公司有利益关系。因此，你已经在《1997年反贪污法令》⑩第15（1）款下犯法，并在此法令下第16条被判刑。

反贪污局总局投诉编号163/2007

① Daerah Tanjung Aru 丹絨亞路
② Unit Udara Polis Pangkalan Sabah
③ suapan （gratification）
④ CESSNA CARAVAN CE 208-9M-PSQ
⑤ Muhamad b. Yassin
⑥ Khalid b. Mohamad
⑦ Lahad Datu，拿笃（位于斗湖的一个州选区）
⑧ Ulu Tungku，乌鲁东古（位于斗湖的东古州选区）
⑨ Syarikat Kinsajaya Sdn Bhd
⑩ Akta Pencegahan Rasuah 1997（Anti-Corruption Act 1997）

---------------------------------
2.

[2] 被告控状如下：

「你身为一名公共机构，也即是警察委员会官员，编号G/5594，担任吉隆坡武吉阿曼商业刑事调查局总监，在2007年6月15日，大约在上午7时 50分左右，于沙巴亚庇丹絨亞路区的沙巴州警察空援组，利用公职获取供养，也即是你曾经发出命令，利用大马皇警拥有的塞斯那『凯旋』CE 208-9M-PSQ型④飞机，你和两位公众人士，拿督莫哈默雅兴及卡立莫哈默，对位于拿笃乌鲁东古的一片编号为 PT 2003110300 和 PT 2003110332 的地皮进行视察，（这块地皮）与金沙再也私人有限公司有利益关系，而你在该家公司有利益关系。因此，你已经在《1997年反贪污法令》第15（1）款下犯法，并在此法令下第16条被判刑。」

表面事实①

[3] 无论针对被告所做的表面事实是伪造与否，法庭的任务即是决定这项案件起诉是否应该结案。一项未能確立的表面案件，即是可信证据的不足，也即是说，在大量的评估过程后，这些证据已经被过滤，以让罪名的重要成分成立，作为被告不答复的揣测（参考：峇拉占南 对 检控官【2005】1 CLJ 85 FC；检控官 对 莫哈默拉特兹【2006】1 CLJ 457 FC； 检控官 对 阿斯吉特【2008】1 MLJ 281）

①Prima Facie Case

---------------------------
3.
这涉及了控方传召之证人的可信度评估，以及控方证据所承认的合理性推测的描绘，而如果此证据中科承认的两个或更多的推测，此推测的描绘将对被告最有利（参考 检控官 对 莫哈默拉特兹【2006】1 CLJ 457 FC）。这案件的考验是：如果被告继续保持沉默，是否有足够的证据令他定罪？（参考 峇拉占南 对 检控官【2005】1 CLJ 85 FC；检控官 对 阿斯吉特【2008】1 MLJ 281）

罪名成分①

[4] 被告被控以触犯《1997年反贪污法令》⑩第15（1）款和（2）款，如下：

15. 利用办公地点或职位获取报酬②的罪行。

(1) 任何公共机构人员，利用其办公地点或职位获取报酬即属犯罪。

(2) 在（1）款下，一个公共机构的人员，在他作出决定或采取任何行动的任何事项时，涉及任何与这名人员有关的任何家属或和他有关系的人士，无论他是否在其中有直接或间接的利益关系，利用他的办公室或职位获取报酬即被推定，直至相反证明③。

因此，在我的看法中，此法令第15（1）款的罪行原理中：

（a）在案发时间，被告是一名公共机构人员
（b）他利用他的办公地点或职位获得报酬；及
（c）他已经获得这项报酬。

① Ingredients of the Offence
② gratification
③ shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved

----------------------------
24.

[29] 根据大马皇警空援组拿督蔡义礼①（证人编号PW17）的供词，9.3款在大马皇警空援组，因为它是警察部队的一部分。他说，9.3款的意义是，在执勤时，警方人员不允许质问来自更高级别的人员的命令，无论是一般性或私人的询问。如果一名人员认为命令不合理，可通过适当管道，向有关当局投诉。在另一方面，《警察通例》②第4守则提到，如不遵守指示或违抗命令，即属犯罪。编号PW17证人所补充说明的与《全国总警长常规指令》③相距甚远，他说，一名高级警员对一名低级警员的请求④可构成一项对后者的命令，而根据警察部队的规定，他将会响应，并被视为是团队精神⑤。

① Chua Ghee Lyee
② General Orders 或称 Police General Orders
③ Inspector General's Standing Order （IGSO）
④ request
⑤ regimented

[30] 有关《全国总警长常规指令》A110中的9.3款（第50页）连同《警察通例》第4条，全国总警长丹斯里慕沙哈山（证人编号PW75）与编号PW17证人意见一致。他补充说，由一名来自高级警务人员的要求，将包括9.3款有关的命令①，他认为这命令包括请求②和指令③。这项检控也仰赖拿督慕斯达法（证人编号PW30）的证据，他是一名退休警察总监，前任内安与公共秩序总监④。有关平民乘客上警方飞机时，他说，如果一名高级人员对飞行指挥官作出请求，指挥官没有质疑其飞行路线和起飞的动机的权利。

① an order
② a request
③ a directive
④ Internal Security and Public Order 内安与公共秩序

-----------------------
35.

此外，他被强制遵从被告的指令的说法是毫无根据的。他的这段供词可作为涵盖他的思想的最佳范例：

交叉盘问

问：如果在上机前后，无论是高阶或低阶的乘客作出请求，而该请求没有干涉到你的飞行任务，因为你是职权者，你是否会执行（这项请求）呢？

答：会

[40] 对此，我必须提到，编号PW75证人的证词中，对51页的第12条的诠释，以编号PW17、PW19、PW57、PW69和PW73证人的佐证相反。反而，我发现编号PW75证人的证词不可靠，应该可无需理会①。首先，他之前并非是一名合格机师，也未曾在大马皇警空援组服务过。因此，他已经承认，他不熟悉《民航法令》②以及相关的条律。况且，他承认说他不知道《全国总警长常规指令》B115第51页中禀明的条款不能与其他法律相冲突，包挂《民航法令》。他进一步同意说他不熟悉《民航法令》。他进一步同意说，他很可能无法准确的解释出51条与该法令如何相冲突。再加上，编号PW75证人同意，编号PW17 证人是大马皇警空援组的现任指挥官，同时，也是一名在加入警察部队后，由始至今服务于空援组的机师，他更有资格解释51页12条的实际效应。此外，他说过，他会听取编号PW17证人的说法，如果后者以51页针对飞行作业作出诠释。

① disregarded
② Civil Aviation Act

[41] 饱学的副法官也提及编号PW73证人的部分供词需要重新检查，作为提呈供词的基础，因为作为推断，编号PW73证人应该是代表……

------------------------------------
77

根据我的想法，其实在机师的证词中，被告已经通知说他企图在飞往拿笃时，瞻望一片土地，这推翻了被告企图在飞行时瞻望土地的推测。

瞻望高度保安区域的课题

[91] 在被告的反驳中提出，在编号PW73证人使用沿海航线，包挂沙巴东海岸的Dent Haven地区在内，在飞行前，他已经提出这项请求。被告的目的是为了视察沙巴的其中一个被视为『热点』，雾气弥漫的敏感保安区域的沿海的沿海地带。通过几位证人的证词，比方说编号PW30证人（前内安与公共秩序总监）、PW22证人（沙巴普通行动旅总指挥官①）、PW36证人（沙巴警察总监）、PW17 证人（大马皇警空援组指挥官）以及PW19证人（大马皇警空援组沙巴州指挥官）指出，Dent Haven地区的确是个恐怖分子活动、走私和海盗，以及非法入境沙巴的热点。该证词证明被告曾经是前沙巴州警察总监，他曾经指挥，与普通部队旅联合扫荡沙巴的非法移民。辩护律师说，可以推测他在沙巴的安全问题上的利益关系，以及他在离开后的生活情况。因此，有理由推测，被告在当时是以安全理由，巡查沙巴东海岸沿海。

① PGA （Pasukan Gerakan Am）Brigade Sabah

[92] 再加上，辩护律师争论说，被告巡视沙巴东海岸沿海并无不妥。所有的五项控状……

-----------------
81

…… 效果。这是编号PW17证人证词中的佐证。最后，我们有编号PW73证人的证词，在其证词中，除了在Dent Haven地区飞机的批准外，他已经看着被告，在此推测中，被告使用食指作出转动的动作。虽然编号PW73证人当时说飞机盘旋的位置即是Dent Haven地区，这显示了在他的交叉盘问中，那个地方其实就是普通行动旅的岗位。其实，极强的佐证来自编号PW69证人，我们在之前看到了控状中无法指出那块地皮与Dent Haven普通行动旅岗位相对的地点或位置。因此，我认为对上述情况而言，对于编号PW11和PW13证人执勤的建议或推测中，提及被告想要在飞行时观看土地的说法已经直接被驳斥。

[98] 控状也仰赖编号PW75证人的证词以驳斥这项推测。编号PW75证人佐证，被告身为商业刑事总监，并无权观察保安地区，因为这是内安与秩序总监的权限。编号PW75证人进一步说，如果与其他警队部门的联合任务，它必须寻求获得批准。他说，在2006年至2007年7月份，他不曾准许商业刑事调查局和内安与公共秩序局有过一场联合任务。必须注意的是，编号PW75证人自己在证词中承认，所谓的一名总监『侵犯』另一名总监的权限，并非是一项成文法律，而只不过是伦理上的问题。令人不可思议的是，之前提到的几位警队资深成员并不知道类似的伦理。五人都说，被告想要检查沙巴东海岸沿海，以观察保安情况，难道这五人都错了吗？

---------------------
82

我完全同意辩护律师所说，编号PW75证人的证词缺乏证明，由于此点，他（的证词）是不可信①的。

① discredit

[98] 因此，基于所建立的各项事实，一个明确的推测可以在合理的情况下呼之欲出。是这样的，被告企图请求检查沙巴东海岸沿海地区（包挂Dent Haven和普通行动部队驻扎地点），通过瞻望，以观察该处的保安情况。这和控方说说的，被告企图请求瞻望土地的推测互相抵触。两者的推测都有合理的可能性，法庭提出此推测最有利于被告（参考 峇拉占南 对 检控官【2005】1 CLJ 85 FC；检控官 对 莫哈默拉特兹【2006】1 CLJ 457 FC）

[99] 在这些众多的推测中都有利于被告，并导致其合理的可能性，即被告曾经请求该飞机飞往沿海航线，以检查保安地区，有理由怀疑在此案中，控方在2007年6月 15日说，被告企图转移航线，以瞻望那片已经被核准转让的土地。根据此点，我的决定是，控方对被告无法提供足够的重点。基于这理由，被告有权获得释放。

构成贿赂的数目是多少？

[100] 《1997年反贪污法令》第2条所禀明的报酬包挂以下：

------------------------------------------
原文光学辨字

PP LWN. RAMLI BIN YUSUFF (G/5594)

Bahawa kamu, pada 15 Jun 2007 jam lebih kurang 7.50 pagi di Unit Udara Polis Pangkalan Sabah, di dalam Daerah Tanjung Aru, Kota Kinabalu, di dalam Negeri Sabah, sebagai pegawai badan awam, iaitu Pesuruhanjaya Polis G/5594 yang bertugas sebagai Pengarah Jabatan Siasatan Jeneyag Komersil, Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur dan semasa menjadi pegawai badan awam itu, telah menggunakan jawatan awam kamu untuk mendapat suatu suapan, iaitu kamu telah mengeluarkan arahan dan menggunakan kemudahan kepalterbang milik PDRM jenis CESSNA CARAVAN CE 208-9M-PSQ, untuk membawa kamu dan dua orang awam iaitu, Datuk Muhamad b. Yassin dan Khalid b. Mohamad untuk membuat penerbangan bagi meninjau satu kawasan tanah di Lot PT 2003110300 dan Lot PT 2003110332 yang terletak di Ulu Tungku, Lahad Datu yang mana Syarikat Kinsajaya Sdn Bhd mempunyai kepentingan dan kamu mempunyai kepentingan dalm syarikat berkenaan, dan dengan demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu keselahan di bawah sekyen 15(1) Akta Pencegahan Rasuah 1997 dan boleh dihukum di bawah seksyen 16 Akta yang sama.

Ibu Pejabat BPR Aduan No 163/2007

---------------------------------
2.

[2] The accused stood charged as follows:

"That you on 15th June 2007, at approximately 7.50 a.m., at Unit Udara Polis Pengakalan Sabah, in the District of Yanjung Aru, Kota Kinabalu, in the State of Sabah, as an officer of a public body, to wit, Pesuruhanjaya Polis G/5597 attached to Jabatan Siasatan Jeneyah Komersil, Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur as Director of Commercial Crimes, Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur., while being such an officer, used your public office for gratification, to wit, that you issued directions and used airplane facilities belonging to the Polis Diraja Malaysia, model CESSNA CARAVAN CE 208-9M-PSQ, to fly in the vicinity of land areas namely Lot PT 2003110300 and Lot 2003110332 situated in Ulu Tungku, Lahad Datu , in order to view the said lands, wherein Syarikat Kinsajaya Sdn Bhd has an interest in the said lands, and you have an interest in the said Syarikat Kinsajaya Sdn Bhd, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 15(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 and punishable under section 16 of the same Act."

Prima Facie Case

[3] It was the duty of the Court to decide at the close of the case for the prosecution wherether a prima facie case has been made out against the accused on the offence charged. A prima facie case means there is sufficient credible evidence, that is to say, evidence that has been filtered and gone through the process of maximum evaluation to establish every essential ingredient of the offence for a supposition of guilt of not answered by the accused (Balachandran v PP[2005] 1 CLJ 85 FC; PP v Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 FC; PP v Mohd

---------------------------
3.

Aszzid abdullah [2008] 1 MLJ 281). This involves an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses called by the prosecution and the drawing of reasonable inferences admitted by the prosecution evidence that if the evidence admits of two or more inferences, then draw the inference that is most favourable to the accused (see PP v Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457 FC). The test is: Is the evidence sufficient to convict the accused if he elects to remain silent? (see Balachandran v PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85 FC; PP v Mohd Aszzid Abdullah [2008] 1 MLJ 281).

Ingredients of the Offence

[4] The charge against the accused is for an offence under Section 15(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997. SEction 15(1) and (2) of the Act read as follows:


15.Offence of using office or position for gratification.
(1) Any officer of a public body who used his office or position for any gratification shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Foe the purposes of subsection(1), an officer of a public body shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to use his office or position for gratification when he make any decision, or takes any action, in relation to any matter in which such officer, or any relative or associate of his, has an interest, whether directly or indirectly.

Hence, in my option the elements of the offence of section 15(1) of the Act are:

(a) that the accused was an officer of a public body at the materiel time;
(b) that he used his office or position to obtain gratification; and
(c) that he received the gratification.

----------------------------
24.

[29] According to Datuk Chua Ghee Lyee (PW17), the Commander of the Air Unit of PDRM, clause 9.3 applies to all personal in the Air Unit of PDRM being part of the police force. He said that the gist of clause 9.3 is that police officers are not allowed to question an order that has been given whether generally or personally by an officer of a higher rank on offical matters. If an officer is of the option that the order is unreasonable, a complaint over the matter can be made through proper channels to the relevant authorities. Rule 4 of the General Orders on the other hand is to make the failure to obey instructions or insubordination an offence. PW17 added that quite apart from what is prescribed in the IGSO and General Orders, in a normal situation, a request from a senior police officer to a junior officer may be constructed to be an order by the latter and he will react according to the norms of the police force, which is regimented.

[30] Tan Sri Musa bin Datuk Hassan (PW75), the Inspector General of Police, had substantially the same views as that of PW17 with regards the application of clause 9.3 of the IGSO A110 (P.50) as well as clause 4 of the General Orders. he added that a request from a senior police officer would include an order and as far as clause 9.3 is concerned, he opined that an order includes a request and a directive. The prosecution had also relied on the evidence of Datuk Mustafa bin Abdullah (PW30) a retired Commissioner of Police that was formerly the Director of Internal Security and Public Order. Speaking in the context of bringing civilian passengers on board a police aircraft, he said that if a senior officer makes a request to the commander of the flight, the commander has no right to question the

-----------------------
35.

the route and movement of the flight. Further, it dispels any notion of him having been under compulsion to obey the instruction of the accused. The one statement from him that best encapsulated has state of mind on this is :

Cross-examination

Q: And if passenger whether of higher rank or lower rank makes a request during the flight or before the flight which does not interfere with your duty in the flight you can comply with it or not because you are the authority?

A: Yes

[40] In this regard, I should mention that PW75 in his evidence gave an interpretation of clause 12 of P.51 that is counterwise to the testimonies of PW17, PW19, PW57, PW69 and PW73. I found however that the evidence of PW75 on this to be unreliable and to be disregarded. In the first place, he was not qualified as a pilot and had never served in the Air Unit of PDRM. Hence, as he admitted, he was not familiar with the Civil Aviation Act and the Regulations thereunder. Furthermore, he admitted to not knowing that the provisions of P.51 (IGSO B115) cannot conflict with any provision of the law, which included the Civil Aviation Act. He agree further that because he was unfamiliar with the Civil Aviation Act. He agreed further that because it was possible he could not say with accuracy and that any interpretation he gave of P.51 is in conflict with the Act. In addition, PW75 agreed that it was possible that PW17 being the current commander of the Air Unit of PDRM and a pilot who has spent his entire service in the Air Unit would be in a better position to explain the practical effects of clause 12 of P.51. Further, he said that he would listen to what PW17 had to say if the latter were giving an interpretation on P.51 with regard to the operation of the flight.

[41] The learned deputy had also alluded to a part of the evidence of PW73 in re-examination as the basis to submit that the inference must be that PW73 was acting

------------------------------------
77

To my mind the fact that there was nothing in the evidence of the pilots that the accused had informed them he intended to view some peices of land during the flight to Lahad Datu serves to negate any inference of an intention on the part of the accused to view lands during that flight.

The Issue of Viewing a high Security Area

[91.] It was the defence of accused that the requeste he made perior to the flight was for PW73 to use the coastal route, which included the area of Dent Haven which is on the east coast of Sabah. The intention of the accused was to inspect the coastline of the one of the mist sensitive security areas in Sabah and considered a "Hot Spot". Evidence was led through several witnesses such as PW30 (the former Director of Internal Security and Public Order), PW22 (the Commander of the PGA Brigade Sabah), PW36 (Commissioner of Police Sabah), PW17 (the Commander of the Air Unit of PDRM), and PW19 (Commander of the PDRM Air Unit Sabah) to indicate that the area of Dent Haven is indeed a hotbed for terrorist activities, smuggling and piracy, and illegal entry into Sabah. PW22 and PW19 as well spoke of the existence of the PGA post at Dent Haven which they said is almost many of such PGA posts within the security areas of Sabah. The evidence established that the accused was the former Commissioner of Police of Sabah and had conducted a number of joint operations with the PGA Brigade to eradicate illegal immigrants from Sabah. The defence said that it could be inferred that he had an interest in the issues of the security of Sabah and to specifically see how things fared since he left. Therefore, the reasonable inference was that the accused had wanted to inspect the coastline of the east coast of Sabah for security reasons.

[92] Moreover, the defence contended, there was nothing wrong in the accused wanting to inspect the coastline of the east coast of Sabah. All the 5 prosecution

-----------------
81

effect. There is corroboration of their evidence on this from PW17. Finally, we have the evidence of PW73 that upon the approach of the airplane at the area of Dent Haven, he had looked at the accused and during the interface the accused motioned to him with his index finger to circle. Although PW73 spoke of the place that the plane had circled as the area of Dent Haven, it came out clearly in his cross-examination that the place circled was actually the PGA Dent Haven post. There is strong corroboration of this fact from the evidence of PW69. We have earlier seen how the prosecution has failed to establish the location or position of the lands vis-à-vis the Dent Haven PGA post. It was therefore my opinion that given the circumstances above, any suggestion or inference that the attendance of PW11 and PW13 in the flight spoken of by the prosecution of the accused wanting to see lands during the flight was squarely rebutted.

[98] The prosecution also relied on the evidence of PW75 to rebut the inference. PW75 testified that the accused as Director of Commercial Crimes has no authority to view security areas as that comes under the portfolio of the Director of Internal Secuirty and Public Order. PW75 stated further that if there is a joint mission with other police departments has consent would have to be sought. he said he had never allowed a joint mission on security between the Commercial Crimes Department and the Department of Internal Security and Public Order between November 2006 to July 2007. It is to be noted that PW75 himself admitted that his evidence on this prohibition against the so-called 'encroachment' of a director into another director's powers is not part of a citation of some written law or rule but was only a question of ethics. It is incredible that the previously named senior members of the police force do not know of similar ethics. Could all 5 be so wrong so as to say that it was permissible and perfectly all right for the accused to have wanted to go and inspect the coastline of the east coast of Sabah to observe the

---------------------
82

security situation? I am in total agreement with the case for the defence that this lack of support of the evidence of PW75 on this point leads to his discredit.

[98] Thus, one clear inference that was reasonable possible stood out from the facts established. It is this. The intention of the accused in making the request was to inspect the coastline (which included the Dent Haven area and the PGA post) of the east coast of Sabah with a view to observing the security situation there. This is a conflicting inference from the one drawn by the prosecution that the intention of the accused in making the request was to view the lands in question. It is trite that where two inferences are reasonable possible, the court is to draw the inference most favourable to the accused (see Balachandran v PP [2005] 1 CLJ 85 FC; PP v Mohd Radzi Abu Bakar [2006] 1 CLJ 457).

[99] In as much as this inference to be drawn in favour of the accused is to the effect that it was reasonably possible that the accused had made the request for the airplane to go the coastal route to inspect the security areas, reasonable doubt had been raised in the case for the prosecution that the intention of the accused in causing the diversion to be made on 15.6.2007 was to view the lands that have been approved for alienation.Following from this, it has to be that my conclusion was that the prosecution has yet again failed to sufficiently establish another essential ingredient of the offence. The accused was entitled to a discharge and acquittal on this ground alone.

What amounts to Gratification?

[100] Gratification is defined in section 2 of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 to include the following:

×××××××××××××××××××××










出处∶Malaysia Today
原题∶The Corridors Of Power ∶Musa Hassan is a liar
作者∶拉惹柏特拉
日期∶15-01-2010
翻译∶四月，西西留