The plaintiffs in an ongoing civil suit against businessperson Vinod Sekhar and his wife Winny Yeap have filed over 400 pieces of documentary evidence that directly contradict Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s denial of ties to the tycoon.
The documents, which the plaintiffs filed on May 4 via their counsel Messrs Goh Wong Pereira, were in reply to Anwar’s application to strike out a subpoena order compelling him to testify as the plaintiffs’ witness in the RM30 million suit.
Anwar, who filed his application on April 15, denied any ties to Vinod, despite the defendant referring to him as an “ally” in emails to two plaintiffs, namely Ronald Barrie Clapham and April Srivikorn, in 2008 and 2010.
In a statement to Malaysiakini, the plaintiffs’ counsel Colin Pereira said the evidence demonstrated the existence of material links and connections relevant to the matters in issue.
“These documents are said to directly contradict the position taken by Anwar in his affidavit in support of the application to set aside the subpoena.
“The plaintiffs contend that the evidence establishes that the testimony sought from Anwar is both relevant and necessary, and that the subpoena is neither oppressive nor an abuse of process.
“The plaintiffs maintain that the threshold for setting aside a subpoena has not been met,” he said.
Colin added that the plaintiffs view Anwar’s attempt to set aside the subpoena as premature and, if allowed, would deprive the court of necessary evidence.
He further said that the plaintiffs’ reply also raises serious matters that fall within the prime minister’s knowledge in his capacity as the finance minister, which are also directly relevant to the proceedings.
PM did not deny he was ‘Anwar’
In court documents sighted by Malaysiakini, the 11th plaintiff, Andrew Murray-Watson, argued in an affidavit on behalf of the other plaintiffs that the prime minister, in his application, did not dispute that he was the “Anwar” that Vinod referred to in email exchanges with the plaintiffs.
“Whilst Anwar did not dispute that the said ‘Anwar’ was in reference to him, it ought to be noted that the defendants, in their defence dated July 5, 2023, ‘vehemently denied’ the plaintiffs’ contention that the ‘Anwar’ was in reference to the current prime minister of Malaysia.
“As apparent from the plaintiffs’ statement of claim, I wish to emphasise that the plaintiffs’ claim is against the first and second defendant (Vinod and Yeap) and not otherwise.
“It has always been the plaintiffs’ position that the first defendant (Vinod) perpetrated fraud against the plaintiffs by exploiting his connections and associations with influential people in Malaysia, including Anwar, to portray a public image as a financially trustworthy and reliable member of society.
“Premised on the above, I verily believe that Anwar is a relevant and material witness to the plaintiffs’ claims, in view that Anwar’s name was mentioned several times by the first defendant to deflect the plaintiffs’ queries.
“It is therefore incumbent for Anwar to attend court to testify as to his relationship with the defendants, as well as to whether he had knowledge of the first defendant using his name to perpetrate fraud against the plaintiffs,” said the documents.
‘Untenable’ for Anwar to deny links to Vinod
Murray-Watson further affirmed that there are many images on the internet showing Anwar and Vinod’s relationship, including those posted by the businessperson on his social media accounts that referred to Anwar as an “old friend and brother”.
The plaintiff further claimed that Anwar had also posted on Facebook on March 9, 2021, that he attended Vinod’s mother’s funeral, followed by the caption “visiting my good friend, Vinod Sekhar, whose dearest mother passed away last night”.
“Based on the foregoing, it is untenable for Anwar to deny his close relationship with the first defendant.
“I wish to further state that, in November 2008, I attended an event organised by the first defendant (at his) house, where Anwar attended that said event.
“The first defendant had also, in August 2025, publicised his connection with Anwar through interviews in ‘AGoodCastShow Series: Datuk Vinod Sekhar: Vanguard or Villain?’
“Premised on the above, there is ample evidence indicating Anwar’s close relationship with the first defendant, and it is untenable for Anwar to contend otherwise.”
Bid to recuse judge
Murray-Watson also raised, in his affidavit, for Kuala Lumpur High Court judicial commissioner Adam@Edward Abdullah to recuse himself from hearing Anwar’s application, on grounds of conflict of interest.
“Anwar, being the prime minister, is constitutionally positioned to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on matters concerning judicial appointments and confirmation.
“In these circumstances, a fair-minded and informed observer would reasonably apprehend that His Lordship may not be able to bring an entirely independent mind to bear on an application by a party who holds such influence over his prospective confirmation.
“Accordingly, to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice and the integrity of these proceedings, I respectfully state that (the judge) should recuse himself from hearing this application.
“I wish to emphasise that I am not stating His Lordship is actually biased, but only that there may be a perception of a conflict of interest,” said the document.
Anwar’s application to strike out the subpoena order has been fixed for hearing on June 19.
A total of 12 individuals, including Murray-Watson, filed a civil suit against Vinod and Yeap on May 31, 2023, seeking RM30 million in damages, including interest, from the defendants over several factors, including misrepresentation, fraud and breach of contract.
They claimed that Vinod persuaded them to invest their money with him or with his various companies, without disclosing his purported bankruptcy at the material time, and that his wife had abetted him. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.