DEBUNKED

Najib’s SRC Trial: Day 88

March 9, 2020

871

- Advertisement - [resads_adspot id="2"]

Then MACC chief commissioner Abu Kassim Mohamed had suggested to the then 1MDB task force for then prime minister Najib to be charged.

9.56am: Former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak enters the dock as proceedings before Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali begins.

10.02am: Former MACC chief commissioner Latheefa Koya enters the witness stand to resume her testimony.

As she looks on, DPP V Sithambaram objects to Najib’s defence team trying to get Latheefa to make reference to the MACC’s Standing Order on evidence-gathering.

Sithambaram argues that the MACC Standing Order is an Official Secrets Act (OSA) document, hence even just having Latheefa refer to the document’s contents brings the danger of breaching OSA restrictions.

Lead defence counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah argues that Latheefa’s reference to the MACC Standing Order would not breach OSA as she is merely referring to the document and does not involve tendering the said document as evidence in court, among others.

Last Thursday, Shafee had asked Latheefa to bring the MACC standing order to proceedings today, so that she can make reference to it in relation to the evidence-gathering.

The evidence-gathering is in relation to the MACC obtaining 1MDB-linked audio recordings of conversations allegedly involving Najib and several other personalities, including Rosmah Mansor and then MACC chief commissioner Dzulkifli Ahmad.

10.28am: The prosecution objects to Najib’s defence team’s “fishing expedition” questioning of Latheefa.

Sithambaram says that Shafee’s style of questioning of Latheefa sounds more like cross-examination of their own witness rather than examination-in-chief.

Shafee was asking Latheefa on the nine 1MDB-linked audio recordings of alleged conversations involving Najib.

“This is a fishing expedition (by Shafee) on how they (MACC) obtained the tape recordings.

“Now they are going beyond evidence and cross-examining their own witness.

“These tapes are not admissible, they (defence) already established that.

“This seems like a fishing expedition to see how the MACC works,” Sithambaram says.

Sithambaram notes that the defence’s cross-examination of Latheefa seems to be intended for court cases outside of the RM42 million SRC International trial.

“If these issues arise before another trial, it should be brought up before that other trial, not make us sit through it here,” Sithambaram says.

However, Justice Nazlan allows Shafee to continue the questions in relation to the interception of audio recordings.

10.50am: The High Court denies Najib’s defence bid to compel Latheefa to answer questions on the method of interception of audio conversation.

Nazlan makes the ruling when Shafee seeks to compel her to answer on the matter.

10.57am: Latheefa questions Najib’s defence team’s line of questioning during the trial.

Latheefa raises this question to Shafee’s line of questioning on efforts to recover billions of ringgit in Retirement Fund Inc (KWAP) loans to SRC International.

The money is now alleged to be frozen in a bank in Switzerland.

“It is clear I was called here to answer questions on the (Najib) audio recordings. That was what I was told (through subpoena).

“Am I being cross-examined or being questioned on the audio recordings.

“That was what I was told,” Latheefa asks during proceedings.

Latheefa also reiterates that Shafee should not be asking her about the billions of ringgit in KWAP loans recovery as she was not part of the investigation team that was probing the issue.

11.01am: Latheefa testifies that she is unable to share development on efforts on asset recovery linked to 1MDB.

She says this during examination-in-chief by Shafee.

Shafee is asking Latheefa the status of the asset recovery of the billions in loans by KWAP to SRC, thereby the money is now alleged to be frozen in a bank in Switzerland.

Shafee: Did you make any progress in the asset recovery?

Latheefa: I cannot share the ongoing asset recovery in this court.

11.05am: Proceedings take a short break.

Earlier, Latheefa was released from the witness stand after completing her testimony.

11.45am: Proceedings resume after a brief break.

Former attorney-general Apandi Ali takes the witness stand as a defence witness.

11.58am: Apandi testifies that he was satisfied that Najib was not involved in wrongdoing in relation to the RM2.6 billion donation issue and the SRC case.

He says this during examination-in-chief by Shafee.

On Jan 26, 2016, Apandi through a press conference has absolved Najib of wrongdoing in relation to the RM2.6 billion donation issue and the SRC case.

“This press release (Jan 26, 2016) touches on the RM2.6 billion that went into the then prime minister (Najib’s) account. After going through the investigation papers, I was satisfied that the RM2.6 billion is actually a donation from the Saudi royal family,” Apandi says.

In relation to his absolving Najib over the SRC investigation, Apandi testifies that he was also satisfied that the loan approval of KWAP’s RM4 billion in loans to SRC was done properly and that no offences were committed in relation to that.

“I found no evidence to show the prime minister (Najib) had committed offence or corruption,” Apandi says.

12.13pm: The MACC never sought his authorisation on wire-tapping 1MDB-linked conversations in 2016, Apandi testifies.

He says this during a question from Shafee.

Shafee: Did the MACC come to you asking for lawful authority for interception of individuals (audio recording)?

Apandi: The answer is no, never. I got no knowledge of these audio recordings.

Shafee: That (audio recordings) never happened vis-a-vis any authority from you?

Apandi: Shakes head.

12.35pm: Najib had no knowledge that the RM42 million that flowed into his account was from SRC, Apandi testifies.

He says this during examination-in-chief by Shafee.

Shafee is asking Apandi in relation to the latter’s decision on Jan 26, 2016, to clear Najib of wrongdoing in the RM2.6 billion donation issue as well as the SRC issue involving millions that flowed into Najib’s personal accounts.

Shafee: Did the then prime minister (Najib) had knowledge of the SRC matter that RM42 million came from SRC, from your then determination?

Apandi: It is my finding that he (Najib) had no knowledge.

12.42pm: Shafee is asking Apandi whether the latter’s decision on Jan 26, 2016, to close the cases against Najib, was because of a cover-up.

Shafee’s question is in relation to an earlier cross-examination by Sithambaram whether DPP Dzulkifli Ahmad, who was part of the DPP team assisting Apandi in going through the investigation papers (IP) on the cases, had suggested for the cases be closed.

Earlier, Sithambaram had asked Apandi whether Dzulkifli, on or before Jan 5, 2016, had suggested for the cases to be closed.

Apandi had told Sithambaram that Dzulkifli never made the suggestion.

Shafee: Were you involved in a cover-up when making the decision (to close the cases against Najib on Jan 26, 2016)?

Apandi: No.

Shafee: Your team were involved in any proposed cover-up?

Apandi: No, I have never given any instruction for a cover-up.

12.59pm: Then MACC chief commissioner Abu Kassim Mohamed had suggested to the then 1MDB task force for then prime minister Najib to be charged, the High Court hears.

Defence witness R Rajagopal testifies this during examination-in-chief by Shafee.

Rajagopal had then represented then inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar during the multi-agency 1MDB task force at its meeting on July 4, 2015.

Rajagopal was then from one of the sub-units in the police force’s commercial crime investigation department.

The 1MDB task force was then comprised of the police, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and Bank Negara, with then attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail and the central bank’s then governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz.

Shafee: Did anyone (at the July 4, 2016) meeting suggest that some court action be taken on the RM42 million SRC International case?

Rajagopal: In the meeting, from what (then DPP) Dzulkifli Ahmad said, I was in the meeting with Abu Kassim who suggested that Najib be charged over the RM42 million SRC case.

Shafee: He (Abu Kassim) suggested that to the task force and its chairperson?

Rajagopal: It (suggestion) was made in the task force (meeting on July 4, 2015).

Shafee: He (Abu Kassim) suggested (for then premier Najib) to be charged?

Rajagopal: Yes.

Shafee: Abu Kassim suggested that a serving prime minister (Najib in 2015) be charged in relation to the RM42 million (SRC case)?

Rajagopal: Yes.

To Shafee’s question on whether the then 1MDB task force took up Abu Kassim’s suggestion to charge Najib, Rajagopal says it did not.

Rajagopal also testifies that when Abu Kassim made the suggestion, he (Rajagopal) was not aware if Najib and other material witnesses were interviewed by MACC beforehand.

Rajagopal is referring to SRC CEO Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil and SRC director Suboh Md Yassin as the other witnesses.

He also notes that by right, usually before a person is to be charged, the authorities would take a statement from the accused before the said accused is charged at court.

1.15pm: Dzulkifli Ahmad and Najib’s former principal private secretary Shukry Mohd Salleh are set to testify for the former prime minister’s defence tomorrow.

This is conveyed by Shafee to judge Nazlan at the end of proceedings today.

Nazlan then adjourns proceedings for the day. Proceedings will resume around 9am tomorrow morning.

Earlier reports:

Mar 9, Latheefa and Shafee Visibly Upset with Each Other

Mar 9, Apandi Stands by 2016 Statements Clearing Najib of Wrongdoing

Mar 5, Najib’s SRC Trial: Day 87

Mar 4, Najib’s SRC Trial: Day 86

Mar 3, Najib’s SRC Trial: Day 85

Mar 2, Najib’s SRC Trial: Day 84

Feb 27, Najib’s SRC Trial: Day 83

Feb 26, Najib’s SRC Trial: Day 82

Feb 24, Najib’s SRC Trial: Day 81