Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Perak graft trial: Duty to fight corruption

IPOH: The star prosecution witness in the trial of two former PKR state executive council (exco) members told the Sessions Court that he has a responsibility to help fight misuse of power, misconduct and graft.

When re-examined by the head of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) prosecution unit, Datuk Abdul Razak Musa, agent provocateur Mohamad Imran Abdullah denied that he was after the monetary gains for helping the Commission.

”It is not true that I want the Commission’s money,” he told Sessions judge Azhaniz Teh Azman Teh on Wednesday.

Mohamad Imran, 34, further testified that he earns enough as a car salesman to support his family.

This drew sniggers and snide remarks from the five accused in the dock -- former PKR state exco members Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu, 57, and Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi, 52, two former Perak Tengah district councillors Zul Hassan, 45, and Usaili Alias, 56; businessman Fairul Azrim Ismail, 31.

The charge pertains to their helping Imran obtain a multimillion-ringgit development project in Seri Iskandar.

Mohamad Imran also told the court that he had helped the Commission in six cases since 2007 but only three were successful.

”Some of the cases just involved confirming tip-offs,” he said.

Earlier, when cross-examined by defence lawyer Surjan Singh, Mohamad Imran said he could produce the logbook detailing his involvement with the Commission but he would need to get its clearance before revealing it in court.

”Off-hand, I cannot remember the details of each and every case that I was involved in,” he said.

Surjan retorted that the court has higher authority than the Commission in this instance.

This made Abdul Razak complain about Surjan’s statement and he wanted the court to remind him to be professional.

Abdul Razak later told the court that the details of Mohamad Imran’s logbook could not be revealed as some information involved ongoing cases.

When questioned by Surjan earlier, Mohamad Imran said sometimes before the start of the trial, he would go through the statements he gave to the Commission regarding this case.

”That is why I can remember its details now,” he said.

The clarity of the video recording of what transpired in Jamaluddin’s office in the State Secretariat building here on Aug 14 2008 became a bone of contention by the defence lawyers during Wednesday’s hearing.

Surjan Singh claimed that the quality of the recording shown in Wednesday’s trial was so much better compared with the one shown to the defence during cross-examination.

”It has given the prosecution an unfair advantage,” he said.

Hearing continues Thursday.

No comments: