ڤندعواان: ڤڬوام نجيب ڤاتوت تاڽ تروس بكس چيو 1مدب، بوكن تاڽ سقسي لاين اڤ دي بريتاهو ڤاچ
Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s lawyer should have directly quizzed former 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) CEO Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi about what he had told a parliamentary watchdog, the prosecution in Najib’s trial said today.
Today was the hearing of Najib’s trial involving four power abuse charges and 21 money laundering charges in relation to the misappropriation of more than RM2 billion of 1MDB funds.
At one point, lead prosecutor Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram sternly objected against Shafee’s line of questioning, saying that Shafee should have asked Shahrol directly instead.
“He should cross-examine Shahrol on what Shahrol told the PAC. How can he cross-examine this witness on what Shahrol told the PAC?” Sri Ram asked.
KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s lawyer should have directly quizzed former 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) CEO Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi about what he had told a parliamentary watchdog, the prosecution in Najib’s trial said today.
Today was the hearing of Najib’s trial involving four power abuse charges and 21 money laundering charges in relation to the misappropriation of more than RM2 billion of 1MDB funds.
SENTIASA IKUTI PERKEMBANGAN POLITIK TERKINI MENERUSI www.thethirdforce.net
Najib’s lead defence lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah was reading out excerpts of the bipartisan parliamentary watchdog Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) 2016 report on its investigation of 1MDB’s governance.
WATCH: PENDEDAHAN FBI CADANG NAJIB DAN JHO LOW BERSUBAHAT
Reading excerpts that involve what Shahrol Azral told the PAC or the PAC’s opinion of him, Shafee was using them to cross-examine former 1MDB director Tan Sri Ismee Ismail who is the 13th prosecution witness in Najib’s 1MDB trial.
Shahrol was both the former CEO of 1MDB and its predecessor Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA), and had completed his testimony as the ninth prosecution witness in Najib’s 1MDB trial over a course of around 40 days from September 23, 2019 to September 3, 2020.
At one point, lead prosecutor Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram sternly objected against Shafee’s line of questioning, saying that Shafee should have asked Shahrol directly instead.
“He should cross-examine Shahrol on what Shahrol told the PAC. How can he cross-examine this witness on what Shahrol told the PAC?” Sri Ram asked.
High Court judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah then noted that he himself had already raised this matter last week when Ismee was being cross-examined by another of Najib’s lawyers, saying: “It should have been put to Shahrol. I think he has already been confronted in fact with the PAC report last week.”
Last week, Najib’s lawyer Datuk Hariharan Tara Singh too had tried to cast Shahrol as being the one who had done wrongdoing in terms of a RM5 billion bond issued by 1MDB’s predecessor Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA).
Shafee then argued that he had already cross-examined Shahrol extensively on the PAC report, and claimed that he wanted to ask a witness that is more independent by asking Ismee whether the PAC’s findings on Shahrol was correct.
Sri Ram then continued to object by saying that it would not be worth anything if a witness was to say that Shahrol was not truthful, as it would be for the High Court to determine for itself if the evidence given by each witness to the court is the truth or not.
In objecting to the PAC report’s opinion on Shahrol’s statement being presented to Ismee for him to be cross-examined, Sri Ram said this was “completely inadmissible” evidence and suggested that Najib’s lawyers could instead present submissions or arguments at the end of the prosecution stage on why they feel the High Court should not believe Shahrol.
Shafee insisted on asking Ismee to reply based on his knowledge as a former TIA board member about the PAC report’s contents, arguing that he had already asked Shahrol previously about the PAC report’s findings.
Sri Ram again fiercely objected by arguing that Najib’s lawyer was trying to bring in evidence that is inadmissible, saying: “Completely inadmissible because whatever PAC findings may be, it’s not binding on Your Lordship. If Shahrol has been cross-examined on it, that is the end of the matter. Whether Witness A believes Witness B is truthful or not is completely inadmissible.”
The judge indicated Shafee could ask questions to Ismee if what was sought was the latter’s independent opinion on whether he agreed to matters based on the PAC report, but also suggested Shafee shorten this questioning.
The excerpts that Shafee had read out revolve around how the Terengganu Sultan had asked for the then Terengganu state-owned firm TIA to suspend or not to proceed with issuing the RM5 billion bond and the board’s resolution for the bond suspension, and also why Shahrol had signed agreements shortly after that for the bond issuance in May 2009 to proceed. (TIA was later in September 2009 renamed as 1MDB and had also come under the Finance Ministry’s ownership.)
Later, Shafee sought to ask Ismee if he agreed with hindsight that the “real reason” why Shahrol could not pull back or suspend the RM5 billion bond “was because he had planned together with Jho Low and the bank for a handsome profit of more than 12 per cent”. TIA had received only about RM4.3 billion of the RM5 billion bond issued, as much of the bond was sold at a discount of over 12 per cent to two companies which then resold them for profit.
The judge however said he did not think Ismee would be in a position to answer such a question, noting: “You are asking whether he had knowledge of some surreptitious deal by Shahrol with whoever else to make profits, how would he know?”
Shafee then rephrased his question to ask if there was an eagerness by Shahrol to complete the deal as compared to the board’s instructions and which Ismee then agreed to.
Source:
WAJIB BACA:
Tun must set up Gerakan Pejuang Nasional (GPN) asap to burry BN, Muhyiddin must stand down
