Justice Abdul Rahman Sebli, chairing a three-man panel, said Rule 74 (2) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 entitled Rosmah, as the appellant, to be present at the hearing.

“She has expressed her wish to be present, except that she is (currently) prevented from doing so due to her medical condition,” said Justice Abdul Rahman who heard the case with Justices Kamardin Hashim and Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal.

Justice Abdul Rahman said the medical report signed by Dr Syed Abdul Latiff Al-Sagoff of the KPJ Ampang Puteri Specialist Hospital, stated that Rosmah was advised to rest in bed and avoid sitting for a long time until her condition improved.

“In the circumstances based on the medical report and her wish to be present in the appeal, we are constrained to allow the appellant contention for an adjournment of the hearing. We, however, fixed the earliest possible date,” he said.

After discussing the available date, the court then fixed June 20 to hear the appeal.

Prosecution disagrees

Rosmah, 67, is appealing against the Kuala Lumpur High Court ruling on March 15, 2019, to allow the prosecution’s application to transfer her case from the Sessions Court to High Court.

On Nov 15 last year, Rosmah pleaded not guilty in the Sessions Court to two counts of soliciting RM187.5 million and receiving RM1.5 million for projects to provide solar energy to 369 rural schools in Sarawak.

Yesterday, the Kuala Lumpur High Court allowed the prosecution’s application for the corruption cases involving Rosmah and Rizal Mansor, the former special officer of Najib Tun Razak, over the solar project to be jointly heard and set 32 days for the trial from Feb 3 to April 30 next year.

Earlier, Rosmah's lawyer, Jagjit Singh informed the court that his client was on medical leave and requested the court to adjourn the appeal as the appellant was entitled in law to be present at the hearing.

Jagjit Singh, assisted by lawyer Akberdin Abdul Kader, told the court that Rosmah was allowed an exemption from attending her case at the High Court yesterday as she was on medical leave.

“We (the defence) only ask for a short adjournment. The appellant wishes to attend the proceedings to hear her case,” he added.

Former Federal Court Judge Gopal Sri Ram, who was appointed as senior deputy public prosecutor, said the prosecution did not agree to the defence’s application to adjourn the matter as the presence of the appellant was unnecessary since today’s matter was an appeal against an order of the High Court pertaining to procedural matters.

He said if the appeal involved criminal matters, such as conviction or sentence, then it would require the appellant to be present in court.

“The court should refuse the adjournment because there should not be any further delay in this matter,” he said.

- Bernama