Prosecution: Rosmah’s defence mere denial

- Advertisement - [resads_adspot id="2"]

Prosecution submits that there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to make up the case against Rosmah.

Art Chen/The Star

In a scathing submission of its corruption case against Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, the prosecution described her version of events which led to her sitting in the dock as something which bordered on the sublime to the ridiculous.

Rosmah, the prosecution contended, had relied on mere denial to defend herself and failed to create any doubt in the corruption charges against her involving the RM1.25 billion project to supply hybrid solar energy to rural schools in Sarawak.

The prosecution team, which included lead prosecutors Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram and Ahmad Akram Gharib, also tore into Rosmah’s demeanour when testifying from the witness box after she was called to enter her defence.

The prosecution submitted that any doubt about her personality was put to rest by her behaviour in the witness box, where she showed her domineering self.

“She was prepared to make wild allegations against anyone she perceived to be against her. Most importantly, her denial of her voice and that of her husband in the audio recording is telling. She termed the contents of the exhibit as utter rubbish.

“Her tone and attitude betrayed her arrogance. She obviously realised that if she accepted that she was the person speaking in the recording her entire story about being a humble and dutiful housewife who did not interfere at all with her husband on official appointments would be blown sky-high,” the prosecution submitted in reference to Rosmah’s denial during trial that it was her in the infamous audio recording where a woman could be heard ticking off a man who sounded like Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

The prosecution contended that from Rosmah’s demeanour, there could be little doubt that the description of her personality by her former aide – Datuk Rizal Mansor, was entirely true.

“Judging by her responses to the questions put to her under cross-examination there can be no doubt that she did indeed instruct Rizal to demand for the bribe and that she did in fact receive RM6.5 million.

“Perhaps the best way to describe her is as a person whose path is not to be crossed, and woe to the person who dares cross it,” the prosecution said it its written submission filed in the court.

On Rosmah’s defence that she was a victim of a conspiracy involving witnesses who had testified against her, the prosecution said she had gone on a virulent and scathing attack against them.

However, it said this had utterly failed as her defence to each of the charges was one of a bare denial.

On Rosmah’s defence that Rizal had gone out on his own to solicit the bribes, the prosecution said it was again a bare denial.

“The question arises whether Rizal was sufficiently a political heavyweight to be able to make the demand off his own bat.

“Given the accused’s pre-eminence and given the fact that in her own words she was “sleeping with the PM”, it is highly improbable that Rizal made the demand for himself.

“She also suggested that Rizal used her name to solicit the bribe. Again, given the totality of the circumstances, including the risks involved for Rizal, it is highly improbable that he used the accused’s name to solicit the bribe.

The prosecution also touched on Rosmah’s own evidence during cross-examination where she said that she was not a fool.

To this, the prosecution submitted that it fully agreed with Rosmah.

“It is precisely because she is not a fool that she used Rizal to solicit the gratification. She is far too clever and wily to make the demand herself.”

On the question of motive of witnesses who testified against her, the prosecution said Rosmah’s argument bordered on the sublime to the ridiculous.

“There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to make up the case against her. This point is brought home to finality by the evidence of the manner in which the RM1.5 million was collected from the bank and delivered to the accused. Again, her defence is one of bare denial.”

On the charge of Rosmah receiving a further RM5 million, the prosecution submitted that evidence showed the delivery of the money to Rosmah’s Putrajaya residence had been established.

“Once again, the accused denies this incident. A bare denial, but upon closer scrutiny her denial appears to be false.

“When cross-examined, she initially said that she was not even at home…that she was all over Kuala Lumpur. However, upon further cross-examination, she shifted ground and said that all over Kuala Lumpur includes her Langgak Duta home.

“Such an important contradiction taken together with the vital omission in her witness statement, with respect, strengthens the prosecution case on this issue.”

The prosecution also submitted that Rosmah’s last-minute decision not to call Najib in her defence showed that she was aware that if called, his evidence would be adverse to her case.

Rosmah is accused of soliciting RM187.5 million from Jepak Holdings managing director Saidi Abang Samsudin, through Rizal, as an inducement to help the company secure the solar project for rural schools in Sarawak.

She is also accused of receiving bribes amounting to RM5 million from Saidi, through Rizal, at Seri Perdana in Putrajaya on Dec 20, 2016.

Rosmah is said to have received another RM1.5 million from Saidi at Jalan Langgak Duta here on Sept 7, 2017.

High Court judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan will hear oral submissions from both parties on April 5. – NST