(Video) Syed Saddiq Acquitted Of All Corruption Charges After 5-Year Legal Battle
Muar Member of Parliament Syed Saddiq can finally feel relief after five long years. The politician has been acquitted of all corruption charges and escaped a prison sentence, a multimillion ringgit fine and caning.
Earlier today (25th June 2025, Wednesday), a three-judge Court of Appeal panel led by Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim unanimously acquitted Syed of his corruption and money laundering charges after allowing his appeal. With this, the Court of Appeal set aside the former Youth and Sports Minister's conviction, seven-year prison sentence, RM10 million fine and two strokes of the cane.
In July 2021, Syed, who was then the wing chief of Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Armada), entrusted with control of Armada funds, was charged with abetting Bersatu assistant treasurer Rafiq Hakim Razali in committing criminal breach of trust (CBT) involving RM1 million of the organisation's funds. He was also charged with misusing property for personal gain and faced two counts of money laundering.
When reading the unanimous decision, Justice Noorin Badaruddin said the lower court erred when it failed to evaluate the evidence and the legal elements required to prove the charges against Syed. She added, 'We reviewed and found the judge failed to consider all the evidence in the case and that there was a serious lapse in the decision-making process. The judge must explain how his logic considered all the evidence in the defence.'
Following the verdict, Syed appeared in front of the attending press. Then, along with his family members, he performed a sujud syukur (bowing to show gratitude) prompted by his father. Also making an appearance at the courthouse to show support for the politician was actress Bella Astillah. The actress sat with Syed's family members in court and was seen comforting them after the verdict.
It must have been a relief for Syed to be acquitted of his charges. Supporters also expressed gratitude over the verdict through social media.
Check out some videos from the courthouse after Syed was acquitted:
Sources: New Straits Times, MalayMail, Free Malaysia Today
What's your Reaction?
+1
0
+1
0
+1
0
+1
0
+1
0
+1
0
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Express
19 minutes ago
- Daily Express
Illegal tours: Go after buyers also, says Satta
Published on: Monday, June 30, 2025 Published on: Mon, Jun 30, 2025 By: Wu Vui Tek Text Size: Liaw proposed that Motac make a public declaration that travellers found joining illegal tours could face a RM10,000 fine and a seven-day detention to assist investigations. Kota Kinabalu: Sabah's tourism industry players urged the authorities to take action not only against illegal tour operators but also their clients. Sabah Association of Tour and Travel Agents (Satta) Chairman Dato' Seri Winston Liaw said targeting both the sellers and buyers would be a more effective deterrent. 'I think the issue keeps recurring despite media coverage and the increase in penalties to RM500,000 in fines and 10 years' imprisonment. Illegal operators are still active,' he said. One of the reasons, he added, is the lack of enforcement manpower within the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture (Motac). Liaw proposed that Motac make a public declaration that travellers found joining illegal tours could face a RM10,000 fine and a seven-day detention to assist investigations. 'This move will strongly discourage illegal tour activities, as the 'no buyers, no hunting' principle would apply automatically,' he said. Subscribe or LOG IN to access this article. Support Independant Journalism Subscribe to Daily Express Malaysia Access to DE E-Paper Access to DE E-Paper Exclusive News Exclusive News Invites to special events Invites to special events Giveaways & Rewards 1-Year Most Popular (Income Tax Deductible) Explore Plans Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia
New Straits Times
16 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Ramkarpal backs tenure extension for Tengku Maimun, two senior judges
KUALA LUMPUR A DAP member of parliament has expressed his backing for extending the tenure of Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat and two other senior judges, saying it would end uncertainty over their positions and help advance the unity government's reform agenda. Bukit Gelugor MP Ramkarpal Singh, who is also DAP national legal bureau chairman, said there appeared to be no compelling reason not to extend the tenures of Tengku Maimun, Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, and Federal Court judge Tan Sri Datuk Nallini Pathmanathan. "The government has stated on many occasions that institutional reform remains one of its top priorities and it is difficult to comprehend why the extension of the tenures of the said judges does not align with such an agenda, particularly at a time when many Federal Court judges have retired or are due to retire. "In the circumstances, it is imperative to allow for a continuation of the status quo of the current administration of the judiciary in order to ensure a smooth transition when the new batch of Federal Court judges takes over," he said in a statement today. Ramkarpal added that the Federal Constitution provides for the extension of Federal Court judges' tenure, and that such a provision must have been intended, among other things, to facilitate the administration of justice. This, he said, is precisely what needs to be done now, given the number of vacancies that will arise following the mandatory retirement of several Federal Court judges, as previously mentioned. "It must also be pointed out that this is not a case of the extension of one judge but three, two of whom are the top two judges in our judicial hierarchy, which makes it all the more important for the government to explain why their tenures are not being extended if that was the case. "The said three judges have performed their duties well and have preserved, protected and defended the Constitution in accordance with their oaths of office and as such, there certainly is merit in extending their tenures for a further six months. "The government should seriously consider doing so as this would certainly enhance the perception of its commitment to reform," he said. It was previously reported that the Malaysian Bar had expressed concern over the uncertainty surrounding the extension of tenure for Tengku Maimun, Abang Iskandar and Nallini. Its vice-president Anand Raj had said it was unusual for the Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal or a senior Federal Court judge not to be granted a six-month extension.
Malay Mail
a day ago
- Malay Mail
Najib's DNAA appropriate in circumstances of the case — Hafiz Hassan
JUNE 29 — In the case of Vigny Alfred Raja v PP [2022], the accused was charged in the High Court for being a member of an organised criminal group, an offence under Section 130V of the Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. On the day of his trial and before any evidence was led, the deputy public prosecutor (DPP) informed the court that he would not be continuing with the prosecution of the accused as investigations were still ongoing. The DPP requested the court to order a discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) of the accused under Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). The accused's counsel objected and said the proper order should be a discharge amounting to an acquittal (DAA). The High Court granted a DNAA on the grounds that: (a) the court had no power to order a DAA without hearing any evidence; and (b) under Article 145 of the Federal Constitution, the power to prosecute or discontinue prosecution was vested in the Attorney General/Public Prosecutor (AG/PP). The accused appealed to the Court of Appeal (COA), which affirmed the High Court's decision. The COA ruled that the prosecution had good grounds for asking the court to grant a DNAA as: (i) the trial of the case had not started as no witnesses had been called to testify; (ii) the prosecution could not proceed for the time being as the investigation was still ongoing and they would proceed with the trial when they were ready! and (iii) the High Court was right to refuse an acquittal in the absence of any evidence before the court. The accused further appealed to the Federal Court. At the hearing of the appeal, the DPP informed the apex court that the investigations into the offence with which the accused was charged had been completed and the PP had decided not to proceed with the charge against the accused. The DPP left it to the Court to make what orders it deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. Pursuant to Section 254(1) and (2) of the CPC, if at any stage of any trial — but before delivery of judgment — the prosecution informed the court that it would not further prosecute the accused upon the charge the accused should be discharged of the charge. Section 254(3) of the CPC provides that such discharge 'shall not amount to an acquittal unless the court so directs'. The Federal Court unanimously allowed the appeal. It set aside the decisions of the courts below, granting a DAA to the accused. The apex court was, however, divided on the interpretation to be accorded to Section 254(3) of the CPC. Federal Court Judge Zabariah Yusof, who delivered a concurring judgment, ruled that a plain and literal reading of Section 254(3) of the CPC means that any discharge granted by the court under Section 254 is a DNAA. In order for a DAA, it has to be specifically directed by the court. The opening wordings in the section are clear and unambiguous; hence the court must give effect to their plain and literal meaning. The court is vested with the discretionary power to direct a DAA of an accused person pursuant to Section 254(3) of the CPC and that such discretion is to be exercised judiciously. In other words, Section 254(3) does not fetter the discretion of the court in directing a DAA if the circumstances warrant it. (Emphasis added) The facts and circumstances of the case — the prosecution having informed the court that the investigations had been completed and the PP had decided not to proceed with the charge against the accused — warranted and justified that an order of DAA be granted to the accused. Lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah speaks to reporters at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Complex on June 20,2025. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa Now, compare the above with the order of DNAA of former prime minister Najib Razak in his final SRC International case involving RM27 million. It must first be said that the circumstances before High Court judge K. Muniandy were different. The DNAA was the most appropriate order given the circumstances of the case. It must be recalled that the prosecution had previously sought the court to grant a further extension to allow for the compilation of voluminous trial documents after indicating it was prepared to proceed with trial, following the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) rejection of a representation submitted by Najib two years ago. The trial had stalled since 2019. Given the circumstances, the learned judge said the rule of law was applicable to prevent such a detrimental situation whereby an accused person was saddled with criminal charges with no outcome for an indefinite and indeterminate period. 'The prolonged wait for trial has become a long haul for the accused person, denying him of a timely resolution,' he said. 'This court is also mindful of the prevailing fact that the preferred charges against the accused date back to the offence being committed in the year 2014, now it is 2025, and the case has not taken off for trial. 'By the virtue of these factors, the most appropriate order is for this court to discharge the accused person without acquitting him so he's not saddled with the charges preferred against him,' he added. More so as unlike in the case of Vigny Alfred Ray, Najib's lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah had suggested to the court to grant his client a DNAA in the interest of justice. The order of DNAA was accordingly appropriate — it did not prejudice the prosecution as they would be free to re-charge Najib when ready to proceed with the case while the accused would not be saddled with criminal charges with no outcome for an indefinite and indeterminate period. So why the criticisms against Najib's DNAA? Understand the circumstances of a case. Every case turns on its facts and circumstances. Only then can an order be appropriate or otherwise. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
