This article first appeared in The Edge Financial Daily on February 20, 2020
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court yesterday allowed a witness in former deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s corruption trial be treated as hostile by the prosecution because of discrepancies between his written statement and testimony.
As prosecution witness Junaith Asharab Md Shariff was deemed to have contradicted his statements in court, Justice Collin Lawrence Sequerah allowed Deputy Public Prosecutor Gan Peng Kun to treat Junaith as hostile and cross-examine him over discrepancies in his statement.
The prosecution submitted that Junaith, who allegedly paid a RM250,000 bribe to Ahmad Zahid — using the company Jogabonito Jewellery & Diamonds to pay the amount and Messrs Lewis & Co, Advocates and Solicitors’ account to receive the funds — had made contradictory remarks in his oral testimony compared to his witness statement, particularly paragraphs 53, 55 and 56.
Businessman Junaith said he personally gave 10 RHB Islamic Bank cheques totalling RM5 million from his own company Syarikat Berani dan Jujur Trading to Ahmad Zahid.
In paragraph 53 of the witness statement, he said Ahmad Zahid had told him that the cheques be made to Messrs Lewis & Co as it was his trustee. In addition, Junaith said the money was donated to build a tahfiz school and a mosque in Bagan Datuk.
However, when cross-examined by the defence lawyers, he claimed not knowing Messrs Lewis & Co was Ahmad Zahid’s trustee.
In paragraph 55, Junaith said in return for his donation, Ahmad Zahid promised him that he would get projects from MyEG Services Bhd worth RM50 million after the 14th general election in 2018, and that these projects concerned foreign workers.
In paragraph 56, Junaith said Ahmad Zahid had also asked him to submit a proposal for the said projects.
However, when questioned by the lawyers after reading his statement, Junaith said he did not directly speak to Ahmad Zahid on any of the matters.
“I never spoke to [Ahmad] Zahid directly about these things. I was only told about them through Datuk Seri Mohamad Nasaee that [Ahmad] Zahid would give me the MyEG projects,” he said, explaining that Mohamad Nasaee is his close friend and also Ahmad Zahid’s brother.
After Justice Sequerah allowed Junaith, the 36th prosecution witness, be treated as hostile, the defence lawyers asked him about his witness statement, recorded by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). Junaith claimed the MACC coerced him to sign the witness statement.
“I was threatened by the MACC and forced to sign the witness statement. They told me that I would be prosecuted if I didn’t sign it,” he said, adding that he was detained by the MACC for almost 12 hours when the latter drafted his statement.
Justice Sequerah asked both parties to make a submission on the validity of Junaith’s testimony at the end of the prosecution’s case.
Earlier, businessman M Kumaraguru M Muthusamy testified that in 2016, he set up a company called Mastoro Kenny IT Consultant & Services under his name at Junaith’s request, to obtain projects from MyEG.
Kumaraguru confirmed signing 13 cheques totalling RM8 million issued from Mastoro Kenny’s RHB Islamic Bank account in 2016 and 2017 at Junaith’s request.
This relates to Ahmad Zahid’s 12th charge of receiving the cheques as inducement for help in securing projects from MyEG.
Ahmad Zahid, also the Bagan Datuk member of Parliament, is facing 47 charges — 12 for criminal breach of trust, eight for bribery and 27 for money laundering — involving millions of ringgit belonging to Yayasan Akalbudi.