Khairuddin says he was detained under Sosma to protect Najib

 

Khairuddin Abu Hassan says the defendants violated his right to freedom under the Federal Constitution and tarnished his reputation and image as a politician.

KUALA LUMPUR: Khairuddin Abu Hassan today told the High Court, here, that his detention by police under the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) was to protect former prime minister Najib Razak, who allegedly abused his powers in connection with the 1MDB scandal.

Khairuddin, 59, as the plaintiff, when reading his witness statement said his detention by former inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar and seven other individuals was merely to prevent him from going to France, Switzerland, the UK, Hong Kong and Singapore to assist the authorities in those countries to complete their investigations.

“The prosecution has used provisions under Sosma against me, among others, to restrict my freedom to travel abroad to assist the authorities there on the police report (investigating the 1MDB issue) that I had submitted and to protect kleptocracy and abuse of power by the former prime minister,” he said on the second day of the trial of his (Khairuddin’s) suit against Khalid and seven other individuals in connection with his detention and prosecution under Sosma.

The seven individuals are Wan Aeidil Wan Abdullah and C Muniandy, both investigating officers at the Classified Criminal Investigation Unit, Bukit Aman Criminal Investigation Department; Dang Wangi district deputy police chief Habibi Majinji; deputy public prosecutor Masri Mohd Daud; senior federal counsel Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud; former attorney-general (AG) Mohamed Apandi Ali and the government.

Khairuddin, the former Batu Kawan Umno division deputy chief, said the police report made on Dec 12, 2014 was well-founded and it was proven when the international authorities mobilised their agencies to investigate and prevent Malaysia’s assets from being smuggled out wrongfully or illegally.

“However, when the authorities in Malaysia conducted an investigation, these parties were silenced by Najib’s administration with the replacement or dismissal of the persons involved, for example Abdul Gani Patail (former AG), that hampered the investigation into the 1MDB issue.

“Furthermore, investigations into the 1MDB issue have been replaced with those of Najib’s confidants under undue influence, for example Mohamed Apandi Ali who, among others, acquitted Najib of any charges regarding 1MDB.

“However, Najib has now been convicted in court in connection with SRC International Sdn Bhd, which is related to the 1MDB issue,” he said.

Meanwhile, when asked by senior federal counsel Andi Razalijaya A Dadi whether the entire suit filed by the plaintiff was directed and stemmed from Najib, Khairuddin replied, “Disagree”.

The plaintiff agreed with Andi Razalijaya that his statement of claim and the evidence in his witness statement were directed at Najib, however, he did not make the former prime minister a defendant in the suit.

Khairuddin disagreed with Andi Razalijaya’s suggestion that the effort to bring the police reports to the other countries (France, Switzerland, the UK, Hong Kong and Singapore) was to expose Malaysia’s weaknesses for not trusting the institution of the police and wanting to sabotage the country’s banking and financial services.

Khairuddin, who filed the suit in May 2018, claimed that he was detained by the authorities on Sept 18, 2015 under Section 124C of the Penal Code and on Sept 23 the same year. After being released, he was rearrested under Sosma and was in custody before being charged in the magistrates’ court under Section 124L of the same act on charges of attempting to sabotage the country’s banking and financial services.

In all, the plaintiff was detained for 60 days at the Sungai Buloh Prison and on May 12, 2017, the court was told that the prosecution would not be continuing prosecution and Khairuddin was discharged and acquitted of the charges.

The plaintiff alleged that the action by all the defendants in detaining and charging him in court was conducted with malicious intent and violated his right to freedom under the Federal Constitution and tarnished his reputation and image as a politician.

The trial continues tomorrow before Judicial Commissioner Quay Chew Soon. - FMT