By Rahmat Khairulrijal | New Straits Times
The defence in Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s corruption trial went on the offensive today, questioning why the prosecution’s first witness relied heavily on TikTok videos as evidence.
Lawyer Datuk Amer Hamzah Arshad, appearing for the former prime minister, raised the question when deputy public prosecutor Wan Nur Iman Wan Ahmad Afzal was questioning Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission assistant enforcement officer Mohd Syawaludin Said.
Syawaludin told the court he would tender two pieces of evidence, namely two TikTok videos from two accounts showing audio and video of Muhyiddin’s speech in which he allegedly admitted that money had been deposited into Bersatu’s bank account.
As Wan Nur Iman asked the witness to describe the video, Syawaludin had used the word ‘bribe’ which had triggered Amer Hamzah to interject, arguing that there was no mention of ‘bribe’ in the footages.
“Why use TikTok videos as evidence? Is this the standard of our prosecution?
“Give evidence based on facts. Do not add things that were never said.
“The witness should reply to facts rather than interpretations… there is no ‘rasuah’ (bribe) mentioned in the video. This is the witness’s own interpretation,” he said before High Court judge Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin.
Amer Hamzah’s remarks prompted lead prosecutor Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin to interject, assuring the court that the prosecution was not relying solely on TikTok videos as evidence.
“I can assure Your Honour that our evidence is not based on TikTok videos alone.
“The defence can cross-examine the witness later. It is a bit premature to dismiss the evidence now,” he said, with Ruwena agreeing.
Ruwena later asked deputy public prosecutor Wan Nur Iman how much longer she would need to question the witness, noting that the prosecution had already spent more than an hour asking him to explain how he gathered the videos.
“So when can we watch the video? I have been waiting for more than one hour,” she said, drawing light laughter from those seated in the public gallery.
Meanwhile, Amer Hamzah when cross-examined the witness questioned whether he investigated who had inserted the caption, geolocation, and hashtag the the videos, which Syawaludin replied in the negative.
Amer Hamzah: Have you heard of Artificial Intelligence (AI)?
Syawaludin: Yes.
Amer Hamzah: If you do not investigate authenticity, can you tell if these (videos) are AI-generated or not?
Syawaludin: I cannot.
Amer Hamzah: TikTok is not credible evidence.
Syawaludin: I disagree.
Earlier, Amer Hamzah co-counsel Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik objected to the amended charges read before Muhyiddin at the outset of the trial today.
He said the charges under the MACC Act did not clearly specify how the accused had allegedly used his position.
“The law required prosecution to state the particulars of the alleged offence, including whether the accused had made a decision or taken any action, and under what circumstances the offence was said to have been committed.
“The defence had been left “in the dark” as the charges did not explain the steps allegedly taken by Muhyiddin in relation to the decisions cited by the prosecution.
He said the lack of particulars would prejudice the defence and affect Muhyiddin’s right to a fair trial.
Wan Shaharuddin, however, objected to the defence continuing with the submission, saying the issue raised had already been addressed previously in the Court of Appeal.
“The defence can raise these issues at the end of the prosecution’s case. There is no prejudice as they will still have the right to be heard,” he said.
Ruwena then said the court had yet to begin hearing the evidence and noted that the prosecution could amend the charges at any time if necessary.
She directed both parties to proceed with the trial.
The prosecution in their opening statement said millions of ringgit channelled into Bersatu would not have been received if Muhyiddin had not been both the party president and the prime minister at the material time.
Wan Shaharuddin acknowledged that the millions of ringgit involved in the case did not enter Muhyiddin’s personal accounts but were instead deposited into Bersatu’s accounts.
However, he argued that Muhyiddin had an indirect interest in the Jana Wibawa programme, as he was the party president and serving prime minister at the time.
Muhyiddin, 79, has become the second Malaysian prime minister to sit in the dock facing corruption charges, after Datuk Seri Najib Razak, whose cases linked to the 1Malaysia Development Bhd scandal had dominated the courts for years.
He allegedly abused his position to solicit RM232.5 million for Bersatu and faces three money laundering charges involving RM200 million deposited into two bank accounts.
