PROSECUTION WANTS ARUL KANDA TO TESTIFY AGAINST NAJIB
Ex-CEO has info linked to actions taken by Najib involving 1MDB audit report, says lead prosecutor
THE prosecution in Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) audit tampering trial yesterday sprung a surprise when it applied to call Arul Kanda Kandasamy to testify against the former prime minister.
Arul Kanda, who was the former chief executive of 1MDB, has, all this while, been sitting next to Najib as a co-accused in the case.
Lead prosecutor Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram informed High Court judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan that the prosecution was relying on Section 63 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 in applying to call Arul Kanda as a prosecution witness.
Among grounds cited by Sri Ram to call Arul Kanda as a prosecution witness was that the latter had information in relation to actions taken by Najib involving the 1MDB audit report.
“In other words, he has information in his possession in relation to the charges involving the other accused (Najib).
“The information particularly relates to the meeting held on Feb 24, 2016, the events preceding it and following it... that is the area we will be questioning him about,” Sri Ram said, adding that the prosecution would file its written submissions to support its application by this Monday.
The Feb 24 meeting cited by Sri Ram involves the one which was chaired by then chief secretary to the government Tan Sri Ali Hamsa.
Ali had testified that the meeting was convened because Najib, who had seen a copy of the 1MDB audit before it was presented to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), was displeased with the contents of the report.
At the end of the meeting, it was agreed that all 60 copies of the original report would be shredded and a modified copy with four issues removed would be submitted to the PAC.
Earlier yesterday, Arul Kanda’s lawyer, Datuk N. Sivananthan, said he would leave it to the discretion of the court to decide on the prosecution’s application.
He, however, pointed out that the prosecution had already indicated its intention to call his client as a witness in its opening statement right from the time the trial started in January 2020.
However, Najib’s lead counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, said the defence objected to the application and would be filing its reply submissions by May 26,
He said this was the first time that Section 63 was being invoked and the defence also planned to challenge the constitutionality of the provision.
Section 63 of the MACC Act stipulates that whenever two or more persons are charged with an offence under this act, the court may, on an application in writing by the public prosecutor, require one or more of them to give evidence as a witness or witnesses for the prosecution.
Those who refuse to give a sworn or affirmed answer can find themselves in further trouble for refusing to cooperate.
Witnesses who give true and full discovery of all things would be entitled to receive a certificate of indemnity, freeing them from all legal proceedings against them.
The hearing continues on May 30.