Senior counsel GK Ganesan asks court to direct Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi to answer questions put to him.
Senior counsel GK Ganesan, representing former 1MDB investment director Kelvin Tan, the seventh defendant, asked the court to direct the 56-year-old fourth plaintiff witness to answer questions put to him, arguing that he could not repeatedly respond “no comment” during cross-examination.
Shahrol had previously said “no comment” when questioned by lawyer Shafee Abdullah, representing former prime minister Najib Razak, about a RM5 billion bond issued by Terengganu Investment Authority Bhd, which Shahrol had alleged was issued on Najib’s instructions.
“My Lord, this is probably the 15th time this witness has said ‘no comment’. The witness has been brought to this court to comment. He has said things that are against the interests of the defendants.
“When questions are asked that are against the interests of the plaintiffs, he says ‘no comment’.
“Under Section 132 of the Evidence Act 1950, My Lord, even if a witness will incriminate himself either in civil liability or criminal liability, he must answer the question.
“Now, it is entirely open for him to say, ‘I disagree’. That’s fine, My Lord. But he must be compelled to answer the question,” he said.
Ganesan also referred to Section 146 of the Evidence Act 1950, which provides for questions to be put to a witness to test his accuracy, veracity or credibility, or to shake his credit.
“The problem now is, My Lord, that we are stuck as defendants, listening to a witness who has repeatedly said ‘I have no comment’. These answers are completely unhelpful in seeking the truth of the matter.”
He also referred to Section 148(2)(c), which allows a court, if it sees fit, to draw from the witness’s refusal to answer the inference that the answer, if given, would be unfavourable.
“May I respectfully ask My Lord to direct the witness to answer the question?” he said before judicial commissioner Redzuan Idrus.
The application was supported by Shafee.
Redzuan subsequently said the court would make the necessary inference if a witness refused to answer a question after being directed to do so.
He also expressed concern that the issue had not been brought to the court’s attention earlier by counsel who had previously cross-examined Shahrol.
“What perplexes the court is that the counsel who was cross-examining the witness earlier did not bring this to the court’s attention. Nor did the plaintiff’s counsel assist or instruct its witness to answer,” Redzuan said.
1MDB and its subsidiaries – 1MDB Energy Holdings Ltd, 1MDB Energy Ltd, 1MDB Energy (Langat) Ltd and Global Diversified Investment Company Ltd, formerly known as 1MDB Global Investments Ltd – filed the civil suit on May 7, 2021.
They named Najib, 1MDB’s former finance director Terrence Geh, former executive director Casey Tang, former general counsel Jasmine Loo, former chief investment officer Vincent Beng, former chief financial officer Radhi Mohamad, former 1MDB investment director Kelvin Tan and former chief investment officer Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil as defendants.
Recently, 1MDB dropped its civil suit against Radhi, with no liberty to refile. The company had previously removed Loo from the case as well.
According to the writ of summons, the plaintiffs, among other things, accused the defendants of breach of trust, breach of statutory duty, abuse of power and conspiracy to misappropriate 1MDB funds.
The hearing continues tomorrow. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.