Morais insists notices to Rosli properly issued

Dismisses trial court’s finding that notices issued under ‘strange circumstances’ based on complaint ‘by a complainant with dubious character’.

KUALA LUMPUR: Former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) prosecutor Kevin Anthony Morais made several concessions today in the civil suit taken out by prominent lawyer Rosli Dahlan against MACC, its officers and the Federal Government.

Rosli had been charged in the Sessions Court in October 2007 for allegedly failing to declare his assets pursuant to notices dated July 17, 2007 and August 16, 2007 issued by Morais. He was, however, acquitted in December 2010 without his defence being called.

Morais acknowledged that Sessions Court judge Abu Bakar Katar had rejected the reasons given by him for the issuance of the notice. He also admitted the notices issued to Rosli and Ramli Yusoff were inter-connected and that  Judge M Gunalan had found that he had issued the notices “under strange circumstances in that it was based purely on the unsubstantiated and unsupported allegations by a complainant with dubious character having antecedents.”

“I was informed by the prosecutor who handled the case that the judge did not accept my reasons for issuing the notices,” Morais testified during cross-examination, “but I do not agree”.

Morais also conceded that Rosli’s only link to Ramli was because he acted as Ramli’s solicitor but acknowledged that neither Rosli nor his firm had handled any transaction which was the subject of investigation at the time.

Despite these concessions, Morais remained adamant that he still had valid grounds to issue the notices.

Denying that the notices had been issued for improper motives, Morais insisted, “They were issued based on investigations and accordance to the law.”

He added that he had reason to believe that a crime had been committed under Section 11(a) of the then Anti-Corruption Act 1997 based on investigations carried out by investigating officer Saiful Ezral Ariffin.

Section 11(a) provides that any agent who corruptly accepts or obtains any gratification as an inducement or a reward for doing any act in relation to his principal’s affairs or business commits an offence.

Morais claimed that he issued the notices premised on that suspicion.

He needed to declare his assets to enable the Anti-Corruption Agency to investigate whether he held any assets for Ramli, Morais said.

“However, in (Rosli’s) written reply, he did not comply with the orders but instead gave his opinions and raised questions on the matter,” he said.

Ramli was likewise acquitted by then Sessions Judge Gunalan in March 2009 of three counts of failing to disclose information pertaining to his ownership of shares in Telekom Malaysia Bhd and in Permaju Industries Bhd, as well as two office lots worth RM1,032,840.

Earlier during examination-in-chief, Morais denied that he had met lawyer Harvinderjit Singh and former police officer Shaari Haron on the night Rosli was taken by ACA into custody, refuting Harvinderjit’s testimony that he had met Morais and asked when Rosli would be released.

The trial continues on Tuesday.