IPOH, Nov 6 – The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) agent provocateur in the graft trial of two former Perak PKR assemblymen admitted today that his testimony was based on his opinion of events, instead of facts.
Much to the court’s surprise, the prosecution star witness, Mohamad Imran Abdullah agreed when counsel Surjan Singh pointed out discrepancies in his testimonies about who had solicited bribe money from him.
“Ruslan asked for money but you tell the court that Usaili asked for it, right?” said Surjan Singh.
Without a moment’s pause, Mohamad Imran replied, “Correct.”
Former Perak Development Corporation Ruslan Sahat and PKR politician Usaili Alias are both implicated in the case, along with the two former Perak PKR assemblymen Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu, both of whom were also formerly state executive councillors.
They were charged alongside two others, namely former Perak Tengah district councillor Zul Hassan and businessman Fairul Azrim Ismail, for allegedly accepting bribes between RM1,000 and RM100,000 from Mohamad Imran in exchange for helping the latter obtain a RM180mil housing development project in Seri Iskandar last year.
However, charges against Ruslan were dropped after he died in August this year.
The corruption case subsequently led to the resignations of the PKR assemblymen from the party, which in turn saw the fall of the Perak Pakatan Rakyat government.
Judge Azhaniz Teh Azman Teh, who was presiding over the trial today, turned to Mohamad Imran in surprise and asked, “Your answer is ‘correct’?”
MACC prosecution unit head Datuk Abdul Razak Musa also stood up to protest.
Mohamad Imran then tried to explain himself, prompting Surjan Singh to tell the witness to shut up.
“You should shut up. You do not need to explain so much. Let the MACC give you the chance to explain later.
“You are not here to prove anything, but to answer questions, so shut up,” he said.
Earlier, Surjan Singh again tried to run the witness down by arguing that Mohamad Imran’s claim that he had been at the Salim restaurant in Seri Iskandar on Aug 10 last year was inaccurate because there was no such restaurant in the township.
Surjan Singh: Are you sure it was Restoran Salim in the town centre of Seri Iskandar?
Mohamad Imran: Yes, I am sure.
Surjan Singh: Eh, Mr Imran, do not lie. Restoran Salim is actually in Tronoh.
Mohamad Imran: I know that the area is Seri Iskandar.
Surjan Singh: I am telling you, there is no Restoran Salim in Seri Iskandar. It is in Tronoh.
Mohamad Imran: I disagree.
Surjan Singh: And actually, the restaurant is Restoran Salam Corner.
Mohamad Imran: To me, it is Salim. And this is what I told the court earlier, too.
Surjan Singh: And that was also what you told the MACC at the time?
Mohamad Imran: Yes.
Surjan Singh: Did you take a picture of the restaurant?
Mohamad Imran: No.
Surjan Singh: I put it to you that you are used to lying and you can lie to anyone – the MACC, to me, to this court.
Abdul Razak then objected, telling the court that Surjan Singh was abusing the witness.
Surjan Singh interjected saying that it was his job to prove if the witness was a liar or a crook.
“I am not being rude or personal here. I do not even know the man,” he argued.
When Judge Azhaniz Teh allowed Surjan Singh to continue, Mohamad Imran answered the latter’s statement with: “Not true. I am telling the truth.”
Surjan Singh: Whatever your opinion is, this is what you tell the MACC and the court? Like you think it is Salim so therefore this is what you tell?
Mohamad Imran: Whatever I see, my opinion and my discussions, I tell to the MACC and the court.
Surjan Singh: So the signboard of the restaurant says Salam Corner but you saw it was Salim?
Mohamad Imran: Yes.
Throughout the rest of the hearing, Surjan Singh and Mohamad Imran broke into verbal war several times, resulting in Judge Azhaniz Teh having to jump in as mediator.
On many occasions, Surjan Singh accused the witness of being a liar and a cheat.
At one juncture, Surjan Singh even asked Mohamad Imran to spell the word “intent” after the latter testified that Ruslan had asked him to prepare an “intent letter” on the said RM180mil housing project.
Surjan Singh: Spell ‘intent’. I, N...?
Mohamad Imran: T, E, N.
Surjan Singh: I,N,T,E,N?
Mohamad Imran: Yes.
Snickers were heard across the courtroom and Judge Azhaniz Teh paused for a bit before turning a surprised look at Mohamad Imran.
“It is not I,N,T,E,N,T?” he said.
Surjan Singh, with a smile, said, “Ya, Tuan. I was just going to ask him that. He is very educated, isn’t he?”
Angry, Mohamad Imran retaliated by saying, “Hey, I think you better just ask the questions you want to ask.”
Still smiling, Surjan Singh told Mohamad Imran to shut up, again, and just answer his questions. “You talk too much,” he added.
During Surjan Singh’s cross-examination of the same witness yesterday, the court heard that the MACC had already claimed that several PKR politicians as well as others in the Perak Tengah district council and Perak Development Corporation were involved in corruption when they engaged Mohamad Imran’s services in early August.
Mohamad Imran agreed that when he was first approached by MACC officer Mohd Firdaus Idris on Aug 4, the latter had told him about a misappropriation of funds which implicated a corporation staff, district councillors and PKR politicians.
He denied, however, that the PKR politicians were MACC’s targets in the case.
Surjan Singh: He (Firdaus) told you to find the PKR politicians who were involved in corruption.
Mohamad Imran: Not true.
He added that he was merely asked to verify details of their involvement and not to target them.
The hearing continues on Monday.
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
