The Red Shirts leader has no proof of Maria’s alleged link to a terrorist group but based it on social media posts.
A judge reminded Sungai Besar Umno division chief Datuk Seri Jamal Yunos today that he cannot simply make claims without evidence in court.
Jamal was testifying in his defence against a defamation lawsuit by former polls reform group Bersih 2.0 chairman Maria Chin Abdullah but was reminded repeatedly by High Court judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Abdul Wahab that he must back up his comments with evidence.
Jamal earlier claimed he had referred to various authorities, including the Registrar of Societies and found Bersih 2.0 to be unregistered, but the judge reminded him that he must show evidence before his claims of having done so will be considered.
“This is a court of law. You cannot make statements without evidence. This is not a coffee shop,” Zaki said, after which Jamal’s lawyer V Mugunthan stood up to explain.
“Stand down. It’s not for you (to speak). This is the right of a judge. You cannot just say something when there’s no supporting evidence,” Zaki retorted.
“When you make allegations about something it’s subject to cross-examination later, it must be supported by evidence.”
Jamal, who is the fourth and last defence witness, appeared in court today wearing a black suit and dark blue shirt along with a black songkok.
He was brought in handcuffed as he was not granted bail earlier this month pending a separate trial for allegedly fleeing police custody.
Throughout his cross-examination today by Maria’s lawyer, N Surendran, Jamal repeatedly said he did not have with him in court the documents or evidence to support his allegations and allegedly defamatory statements.
“(My statements) were made because Maria thought herself (and Bersih 2.0) as an NGO that was free of politics, but whenever a gathering is held, it was politicians who were at the forefront of things,” he said.
On October 7, 2016, Maria had, as then Bersih 2.0 chair, sued Jamal for defamation.
Maria alleged that Jamal had made defamatory remarks on September 28 and October 4, 2016, by claiming that the Bersih 2.0 movement was infiltrated by the terrorist group Islamic State (IS).
Today, Jamal disagreed that he did not have the facts when he claimed in 2016 that Bersih 2.0 and Maria were involved with the IS.
When asked if he had proof of Bersih 2.0 and Maria’s alleged ties to the IS, Jamal said: “Yes.”
However, he said the purported evidence was not in court.
Earlier, when answering queries from Surendran, Jamal admitted that he did not have any proof that Maria’s late husband, Yunus Ali, was a Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) commando involved in acts of militancy.
He also said he was unsure when asked about his allegations that Yunus had been involved in hijacking aircraft, bombings and the Munich Olympics incident in 1972.
“I am not sure…whatever I learned I got from social media. I do not have any evidence to support the allegations as I did not keep any of what I read,” he said.
On his act of throwing the letter of summons for the suit in a toilet bowl, Jamal said: “I did so because the suit did not come from Bersih, whereas my statements had been against the organisation and not Maria.”
As for his allegedly defamatory claim that those in the Bersih 5 rally on November 19,
2016 would encircle strategic spots such as the Kuala Lumpur International Airport and KLIA2, Jamal today insisted that it was not a “serious” accusation.
When asked if he had proof when he made the claim, Jamal again insisted he did and alleged he had handed it over to the police.
Jamal agreed when Surendran asked: “When you made the statement, you knew it may not be true?”
Throughout the hearing, Jamal repeatedly insisted that his multiple statements against Maria were not malicious.
As for Jamal’s remark that his Red Shirts movement would also show up in possibly a more aggressive manner than before on the day the Bersih 5.0 rally is held, Jamal denied having the intention to act aggressively.
“No, these are just words that were stated as provocation. After it happened, we didn’t do as stated,” he said, asserting that it was to “block Bersih from existing”.
“That is a statement that is not true, but that is my statement,” he said, confirming that he had made the statement to reporters.
When cross-examined by his lawyer Mohammed Nasser Yusof, Jamal said: “Much of what I said – as I said before this – are my assumption and what my group and I do is a provocation to foil the Bersih rally”.
The hearing for the defamation suit concluded today.
PKR’s Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and activist Hishamuddin Rais had previously testified as Maria’s witnesses.
Johor PKR chairman Hassan Karim, former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar were subpoenaed as Jamal’s defence witnesses.
The High Court fixed August 13 for case management, during which the decision date is expected to be fixed.
Maria is seeking general and aggravated damages, as well as an injunction to stop Jamal from uttering or publishing similar words, either verbally, in print, or online.