Haidar Mohd Noor FCJ:

[1] The appellant, after he was dismissed as the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, was subsequently charged before the High Court on 5 October 1998 with five counts of sodomy under s 377B of the Penal Code and five counts of corrupt practice under s 2(1) of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No: 22 of 1970 ("the Ordinance"). He claimed trial to all ten charges. The prosecution elected to proceed with four charges under s 2(1) of the Ordinance and applied to the High Court for the four charges to be tried together pursuant to s 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code (FMS Cap 6) ("CPC"). The defence did not object and it was accordingly allowed.

[2] The appellant was found guilty on all the four charges, as amended at the close of the prosecution case, by the High Court. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to six years' imprisonment on each of the amended charges, the sentences to run concurrently. The learned judge, however, ordered the sentences to take effect from the date of conviction instead of from date of arrest of the appellant.

[3] On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the appellant's appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (see [2000] 1 MLRA 151, [2000] 2 CLJ 695). Hence his appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming his conviction and sentence to this Court.

[4] After hearing counsel for both parties we reserved our judgment as we intimated that we needed time to consider the many issues raised by the appellant's counsel. We now proceed to give our judgment.

[5] All references to pages in this judgment with respect to the judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal are references to pages in [1999] 1 MLRH 59, [1999] 2 CLJ 215 and [2000] 1 MLRA 151, [2000] 2 CLJ 695 respectively.

[6] In attempting to overturn the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the appellant in his petition of appeal filed on 5 June 2000 in this Court set out thirty three (33) grounds and put them broadly under the following heads:

(a) abuse of process.

(b) amendment of charges.

(c) expunging of evidence.

(d) amended charges.

(e) judge's findings that offences committed.

(f) evidence and witnesses.

(g) evaluation of evidence.

(h) burden of proof.

(i) contempt of Court.

(j) sentence.

[7] We need not consider the grounds on a head to head basis as the grounds under certain heads seem to overlap and can conveniently be dealt with together.

[8] We do not propose also to set out the facts of the case in detail save as and when necessary we will refer to the facts that may be relevant to the issues under consideration.

Abuse Of Process

[9] We will consider the issue of abuse of process first because if the appellant succeeds on this ground, he will obviously succeed in his appeal before us. This is on the premise that the Dewan Rakyat by way of motion introduced by the Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, YB Datuk Haji Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz on 22 October 1988 passed a resolution to annul the Ordinance in view of the coming into force of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 on 8 January 1998 consolidating three pieces of legislation relating to corruption which had been in force earlier on, namely:

(i) Prevention of Corruption Act 1961;

(ii) Anti-Corruption Agency Act 1982; and

(iii) Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No: 22 of 1970.

[10] In matters of (iii) it can only cease to have effect if resolutions are passed by both Houses of Parliament annulling the Ordinance pursuant to art 150(3) of the Federal Constitution ("Constitution"), which reads:

(3) A Proclamation of Emergency and any ordinance promulgated under cl (2B) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and, if not sooner revoked, shall cease to have effect if resolutions are passed by both Houses annulling such Proclamation or ordinance, but without prejudice to anything previously done by virtue thereof or to the power of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to issue a new Proclamation under