We in fact have the decision already but we will deliver it in July
Dalam lorong panjang keadilan, kadangkala halangan paling manusiawi — sakit seorang hakim — yang menangguhkan saat penentu. Di Putrajaya pada 30 Jun, Mahkamah Persekutuan bersedia mengumumkan keputusannya mengenai rayuan pendakwaan terhadap pembebasan Ahli Parlimen Muar Syed Saddiq, tetapi ketidakhadiran seorang ahli panel kerana cuti sakit memaksa mahkamah menangguhkan pengumuman itu ke 13 Julai. Keputusan sudah dibuat; hanya masa penyampaiannya yang tertunda — namun bagi seorang lelaki yang kebebasan dan masa depan politiknya tergantung di penghujung keputusan itu, dua minggu tambahan bukanlah sekadar angka.
- Panel tiga hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan telah bersedia menyampaikan keputusan muktamad mengenai nasib Syed Saddiq — tetapi seorang hakim jatuh sakit pada pagi yang sama, melumpuhkan prosiding.
- Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan Datuk Seri Abu Bakar Jais hadir bersendirian di bangku untuk menerangkan kelewatan itu, menegaskan bahawa keputusan sebesar ini tidak boleh disampaikan tanpa kehadiran kesemua ahli panel.
- Di sebalik tangguhan ini tersimpan pertaruhan besar: Mahkamah Tinggi pernah memenjarakan Syed Saddiq tujuh tahun, mencambuk dua kali, dan mendenda RM10 juta — sebelum Mahkamah Rayuan membebaskannya sepenuhnya.
- Pendakwaan kini berjuang di peringkat tertinggi untuk memulihkan sabitan itu, menjadikan Mahkamah Persekutuan penimbang akhir antara penjara dan kebebasan.
- Keputusan sudah ada di tangan panel — 13 Julai hanyalah tarikh ia akan diucapkan, tertakluk kepada ketersediaan semua pihak.
Mahkamah Persekutuan di Putrajaya sepatutnya mengakhiri penantian panjang pada 30 Jun — tetapi takdir kecil berupa cuti sakit seorang hakim mengubah rancangan itu. Hakim Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali tidak hadir kerana sakit, dan tanpa kesemua tiga ahli panel, mahkamah memutuskan bahawa tidak wajar menyampaikan keputusan sepenting ini. Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan Datuk Seri Abu Bakar Jais hadir bersendirian untuk menerangkan keadaan, mengakui bahawa panel sebenarnya sudah bersedia dengan penghakiman mereka sejak pagi itu.
Kes ini memikul beban yang berat. Syed Saddiq berhadapan dengan empat pertuduhan — pecah amanah jenayah, penyelewengan tidak jujur, dan pengubahan wang haram — semuanya berkaitan dana Armada, sayap belia Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia. Mahkamah Tinggi pernah mensabitkan dan memenjarakannya pada November 2023, tetapi Mahkamah Rayuan kemudiannya membebaskannya sepenuhnya. Kini pendakwaan membawa rayuan ke Mahkamah Persekutuan, mahkamah tertinggi negara, untuk memulihkan sabitan itu.
Abu Bakar menegaskan bahawa keputusan sudah ada — ia hanya menunggu untuk diumumkan. Tarikh baharu ditetapkan pada 13 Julai, tertakluk kepada ketersediaan pihak-pihak terlibat. Bagi Syed Saddiq, ahli parlimen yang kebebasannya dan masa depan politiknya masih tergantung, dua minggu tambahan itu terasa lebih panjang daripada sekadar angka di kalendar.
The Federal Court's decision on whether to uphold the prosecution's challenge to Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman's acquittal will have to wait. On Tuesday, June 30, the three-judge panel convened in Putrajaya to announce its ruling on the Muar MP's four criminal charges—but one of the justices was absent, and the court could not proceed.
Court of Appeal President Datuk Seri Abu Bakar Jais sat alone on the bench and explained that Federal Court judge Datuk Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali had been placed on medical leave for the day and Wednesday. The third member of the panel, Federal Court judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah, was also not present. Without all three judges, Abu Bakar said, it would be improper to hand down a decision of this magnitude.
"Justice Ruzima is not here as we were informed she is unwell and is taking time off to recover today and tomorrow," Abu Bakar told the courtroom. "Given the circumstances, we cannot deliver our decision today. It would not be right to deliver the decision without one member of the panel." The court had been ready. Abu Bakar acknowledged that the panel had prepared its judgment and intended to announce it that morning, but the medical leave notification arrived too late to formally notify the parties the night before. Rather than send word through the registry at the last moment, he chose to appear in person to explain the delay.
The case itself carries significant weight. Syed Saddiq faces four charges involving criminal breach of trust, dishonest misappropriation, and money laundering. All are tied to funds belonging to Armada, the youth wing of Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia. The High Court had convicted him in November 2023, sentencing him to seven years in prison, two strokes of the cane, and a RM10 million fine. But the Court of Appeal overturned that conviction entirely, acquitting him on all counts. Now the prosecution is fighting to restore the conviction, and the Federal Court is the final arbiter.
Abu Bakar made clear that the panel's work was done. "We in fact have the decision already but we will deliver the decision in July and not today," he said. The new date is July 13, pending the availability of the parties involved. The postponement means another two weeks of uncertainty for Syed Saddiq, whose political future and personal freedom remain in the balance. The panel has made its choice; the courtroom will simply have to wait to hear it.
Notable Quotes
It would not be right to deliver the decision without one member of the panel— Court of Appeal President Datuk Seri Abu Bakar Jais
We in fact have the decision already but we will deliver the decision in July and not today— Court of Appeal President Datuk Seri Abu Bakar Jais
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why couldn't they just announce the decision with two judges present?
Because in appellate work, especially at the Federal Court level, you need the full bench. A decision without all three judges lacks the legitimacy and weight the law demands. It's not just procedure—it's the foundation of the ruling itself.
But they said they already have the decision written. So what difference does one absent judge make?
The difference is that all three judges need to be present when the decision is formally delivered in open court. It's a matter of judicial integrity. If one judge isn't there to stand behind the ruling, it opens the door to challenges later.
How unusual is it for a judge to fall ill right before a major ruling?
It happens, but it's always awkward. The timing here was particularly tight—they didn't know until the last moment, so there was no time to reschedule or notify everyone properly. Abu Bakar chose to show up in person rather than send a notice through the registry. That's a courtesy, but it also signals how seriously they take the delay.
What does this mean for Syed Saddiq?
Two more weeks of limbo. He's been fighting this for years—the High Court convicted him, the Court of Appeal freed him, and now the prosecution is trying to reverse that acquittal. The Federal Court has already decided which way it's going, but he won't know until July 13.
Is there any chance the decision changes between now and then?
No. The judges have deliberated and reached their conclusion. This is purely a procedural delay. The decision is locked in; they're just waiting for the right moment to say it out loud.