Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim applied to strike out a subpoena requiring him to testify against businessperson Vinod Sekhar and his wife Winny Yeap, in an ongoing civil dispute.
Court documents showed that Messrs Christopher Lee & Ong filed the application on April 15, on behalf of Anwar, along with a certificate of urgency.
The application, however, was filed just five days before Anwar would have to testify on Monday (April 20) before judicial commissioner Adam @ Edward Abdullah.
Previously, Malaysiakini reported that Anwar was subpoenaed to appear as a plaintiff’s witness at the Kuala Lumpur High Court and that the order was served to him on Jan 21.
The civil suit was filed by 12 individuals in 2024 against Vinod and his wife over alleged misrepresentations, fraud, and breach of contract.
‘No basis for alleged ties’
The prime minister, in his supporting affidavit, claimed it is wholly misconceived and without basis to allege that he and Vinod have a close relationship.
This was despite the defendant referring to him as an “ally” in emails, particularly between Vinod and two of the plaintiffs, Ronald Barrie Clapham and April Srivikorn, in 2008 and 2010.
Anwar further said there is nothing in the said emails to suggest that he had any involvement in the matters forming the subject of the ongoing suit.
“In the circumstances, I am advised by my solicitors and verily believe that any reference to me in the said email does not render me a relevant witness in these proceedings.
“As a public figure and politician, I meet many individuals and have numerous supporters, and it is not uncommon for persons to refer to me in their communications.
“However, such references, without more, do not justify my being called as a witness in a suit merely because such individuals or supporters subsequently become litigants.
“In the circumstances, I am advised by my solicitors and verily believe that the plaintiff’s allegations (in) their statement of claim that I would attend to (Vinod’s) bankruptcy or any allegation that he and I shared a close relationship, is wholly misconceived and without basis,” he said, in seeking to strike out the subpoena.
Claims subpoena defective, unjustified
Anwar claimed the plaintiffs’ attempt to subpoena him was misconceived and amounted to an abuse of process. He also said the subpoena was frivolous, vexatious, and scandalous, and defective due to irregular service.
He added that he is neither a relevant nor material witness and would not assist the court in resolving the dispute.
He further said he had no involvement in, knowledge of, or access to the alleged dealings, representations, and transactions at the centre of the case.
“I have never attended to nor assisted the first defendant (Vinod) in relation to his alleged bankruptcy, nor do I have any knowledge relevant to the matter in dispute in this suit.
“The defendants have denied (in their defence pleaded) the plaintiff’s allegations in the statement of claim.
“They have further pleaded that any such allegations or reference to me are scandalous and irrelevant to the plaintiffs’ claims and that the references to me as the current prime minister are made for an ulterior motive with mala fide intent and constitute an abuse of process.
“There is no basis whatsoever for the plaintiffs to call me as a witness, and my attendance would serve no useful purpose.”
In seeking the order to be struck out, Anwar also sought an interim stay of the order pending the full disposal of the application, as well as costs from the plaintiffs and other relief deemed fit by the court.
Investors allege Vinod invoked Anwar
Apart from Clapham, the other plaintiffs included Vinod’s investors - namely Graham David Bell, Arthur J Mirante II, Charles Robert Henry Stone, Paul Sallis Benney, Paul Nicholas Smith, Octavio Augusto Vallarino Arias, Simon Hafeitz Homsany, Talbortt Gerard Young, and Uri Fruchtmann.
Srivikorn and the remaining plaintiff, Andrew Murray-Watson, are Vinod’s former employees.
The plaintiffs claimed Vinod had persuaded them to invest with him or with his various companies, without disclosing his purported bankruptcy at the material time.
In their statements of claim, the plaintiffs said they queried Vinod on the bankruptcy issue via email on Sept 30, 2020.
They also claimed Vinod had “brushed it off” and appeared to suggest that one “Anwar” would attend to the matter and that Vinod is aligned with him, whom they believed referred to the prime minister.
The court began hearing the case in October last year, when one of the investors, Bell, testified on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Bell told the court that Vinod had portrayed himself as a trustworthy member of the community due to his connections with influential people, including Anwar.
He also told the court that the plaintiffs filed the suit against Vinod and Yeap after the duo constantly failed to update them on their investment status, which resulted in them losing patience.
However, during one proceeding, Bell agreed with Vinod’s lawyer, Rajan Navaratnam, that no evidence proved Vinod used Anwar’s name to solicit investment or money from him or the other 11 plaintiffs. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.