Ali Hamsa told me to keep my opinion out of 1MDB audit report - Ambrin

AUDIT REPORT TRIAL | The then chief secretary to the government Ali Hamsa allegedly told former auditor-general Ambrin Buang to remove the latter’s opinion from the 1MDB final audit report, the Kuala Lumpur High Court heard today.

Sixth prosecution witness Ambrin testified that this was what transpired during a meeting between himself, Ali, former 1MDB CEO Arul Kanda Kandasamy and several others on Feb 24, 2016.

Ambrin (above) was testifying today during the 1MDB audit report tampering trial of former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak and co-accused Arul Kanda.

The meeting on Feb 24, 2016, was crucial where a decision was allegedly made for several controversial issues to be dropped from the 1MDB final audit report.

On Aug 10 this year during cross-examination by Najib’s defence team, Ambrin testified that he felt insulted that Arul Kanda was allowed to go through page by page the 1MDB audit report.

During that trial date, Ambrin had also testified that he was told to keep his opinion to himself and that his opinion was removed from the 1MDB audit report. However, it was not clear then who asked him to do so.

Ali Hamsa

During the cross-examination by Arul Kanda’s lead defence counsel N Sivananthan today, Ambrin clarified that Ali telling him to remove his opinion from the 1MDB audit report was almost like an instruction.

“It was difficult, it was almost like an instruction, from the chief secretary (to the government then, Ali) to remove my opinion from my own (audit) report (on 1MDB).

“The KSN (chief secretary to the government then, Ali) wanted to ensure our (National Audit Department) opinion (on 1MDB) to be taken out,” Ambrin replied to Sivananthan in regard to the former’s previous testimony of feeling insulted that Arul Kanda was allowed to peruse page by page the 1MDB audit report, prior to finalisation.

During proceedings on June 16, prosecution witness Ali testified that Ambrin was not pressured or intimidated into altering the audit report on 1MDB.

Meanwhile, Ambrin agreed with Sivananthan that it was Ali who asked for four potentially controversial issues to be dropped from the 1MDB audit report.

Sivananthan was referring to the transcript of the Feb 24, 2016, meeting, which also involved then representative from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) Dzulkifli Ahmad and Najib’s principal private secretary Shukry Mohd Salleh, among others.

The meeting was purported to have resulted in the removal of four issues from the 1MDB audit report, among them being the issue of the troubled sovereign wealth fund’s two conflicting versions of its 2014 financial statements, and the issue of key figure Low Taek Jho or Jho Low’s presence at a 1MDB board meeting.

Sivananthan: In your Witness Statement, you said all four (issues) amendments, which are the subject matter of the charges (against Najib and Arul Kanda), (among participants of the Feb 24 meeting) Ali Hamsa, Shukry, Dzul (Dzulkifli) and others gave their opinion on what should be done, but you never mentioned what Arul Kanda said. In relation to the “Drop la”, this all came from the KSN (Ali). KSN said, “Why don’t you drop it”. Is this right?

Ambrin: Yes.

Sivananthan was referring to the transcript of the Feb 24, 2016, meeting, where Ali was alleged to have asked for the potentially controversial issues to be dropped from the 1MDB audit report.

Later on, Sivananthan told judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan that Arul Kanda’s defence team has wrapped up cross-examination of Ambrin.

The lawyer informed the court that Arul Kanda’s defence team, however, still reserved its right to recall Ambrin for further cross-examination, depending on further developments during the trial.

Meanwhile, during re-examination by lead deputy public prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram today, Ambrin testified that the 1MDB audit report as it stood on Feb 22, 2016, was already a final version ready to be presented to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

The witness agreed with the DPP that if the meetings on Feb 22 and 24, 2016, did not take place, the said 1MDB audit report would have been presented to the PAC.

Sri Ram: If the meeting on Feb 22 and 24 (2016) had not taken place, which report would have gone to the PAC?

Ambrin: This one (in reference to the 1MDB audit report that was already ready as of Feb 22, 2016).

It was reported that the National Audit Department (NAD) was scheduled to present the 1MDB audit report to PAC on Feb 24, 2016.

However, the PAC hearing was later postponed to March, that same year.

The meeting on Feb 22, 2016, was allegedly between Najib and Ambrin at the Prime Minister’s Department in Putrajaya, where Najib was alleged to have directed Ambrin to drop the issue of 1MDB’s conflicting 2014 financial statement from the report.

Yesterday, Ambrin testified that he was never asked by Najib to choose one of the two conflicting 1MDB financial statements during the Feb 22 meeting.

Ambrin reiterated today that Najib did not order him to drop the issue of the 1MDB conflicting financial statements from the 1MDB audit report, but that the then-premier merely suggested.

“He (Najib) did not order… it was just a suggestion,” Ambrin said, adding that the final decision to drop the issue was made by him (Ambrin) on Feb 24, 2016.

Ambrin was referring to his Witness Statement, where he testified that on Feb 22, 2016, Najib had asked him to not put the issue into the 1MDB audit report.

The Witness Statement also stated that on that same day, Najib had promised Ambrin that the authorities would fully investigate the matter and “get to the bottom of this” as soon as possible.

After the brief re-examination, Sri Ram informed the court that the prosecution needed more time to prepare a more in-depth line of questions, considering Ambrin’s testimony given under cross-examination by Najib’s and Arul Kanda’s defence teams.

Zaini then allowed proceedings to adjourn and set the trial to resume on Aug 24.

Najib is charged with using his position to order amendments to the 1MDB audit report before it was presented to the PAC to avoid any action being taken against him.

Co-accused Arul Kanda is charged with abetting Najib in making the amendments to the report.

Both of them were charged under Section 23(1) of the MACC Act 2009, which specifies a jail term not exceeding 20 years, and a fine of no less than five times the amount of gratification or RM10,000, whichever is higher. - Mkini