KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 19 — The High Court should reject parts of testimony from Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s former press secretary, Maj Gen (Rtd) Datuk Fadzlette Othman Merican Idris Merican, attacking the credibility of a key witness in a trial against the former deputy prime minister, the prosecution said today.

Today was scheduled to be Fadzlette Othman Merican’s turn to testify as the second defence witness for Ahmad Zahid’s trial involving 47 charges, including alleged criminal breach of trust over RM31 million of charity Yayasan Akalbudi’s funds, money-laundering, and alleged accepting of RM21.25 million in bribes.

Fadzlette’s written witness statement was not physically read out in court today, but was deemed or taken as read.

She is currently the media director of Ahmad Zahid in his capacity as Umno president, and was previously his press secretary when he had been deputy prime minister and home minister.

Lead prosecutor Datuk Raja Rozela Raja Toran objected, however, to several paragraphs of the statement, saying these were irrelevant to the charges against Ahmad Zahid and should not be accepted by the High Court as evidence.

"It should not be let alone, it should be excluded on the grounds of it being irrelevant and inadmissible because of collateral facts,” she said.

The parts of Fadzlette’s testimony — against which the prosecution objected — had tried to attack the credibility and to discredit Major Mazlina Mazlan @ Ramly.

Ahmad Zahid’s former executive secretary Mazlina was a star witness for the prosecution as its 90th witness, but Ahmad Zahid and his lawyers have consistently tried to pin the blame on her for the use of Yayasan Akalbudi’s cheques for purposes such as paying the credit card bills for Ahmad Zahid and his wife.

Raja Rozela today pointed out that Mazlina’s credibility as a witness is not the main issue in Ahmad Zahid’s trial, as the main issues should revolve around the charges against Ahmad Zahid.

Raja Rozela said the High Court has the power to control how much evidence are introduced through witnesses’ statements, as long as the statements are relevant to the main issues in the trial.

"The statements must be relevant to the facts, whether the facts in issue or facts relevant to the facts in issue in this case.

"What this witness is here today to read out — the statement — it is definitely in my humble submission, it is merely a collateral, secondary issue, a secondary fact which has no bearing whatsoever to the facts in issue,” she said, arguing that the disputed parts of Fadzlette’s testimony regarding Mazlina would not help the High Court in deciding on the facts in issue or the charges against Ahmad Zahid.

"So, with that My Lord, the statements in Paragraph 16 to 30, whether it applies to or makes reference to Major Mazlina, must be ruled as inadmissible on grounds of it being collateral evidence, My Lord,” she said.

Raja Rozela had based the prosecution’ objections against parts of Fadzlette’s testimony on Section 153 of the Evidence Act.

Ahmad Zahid’s lead defence lawyer, Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, then requested for time to prepare a response to the prosecution’s objection to parts of Fadzlette’s written witness statement as the defence was not given earlier notice of the objection, suggesting that he could return tomorrow morning to present the arguments.

However, Raja Rozela said the prosecution is not required to give any notice as this was not a preliminary objection, adding: "I think the defence in all their wisdom should have anticipated this kind of our objection, this is an evidentiary rule, it’s very clear, it’s nothing new, it’s not something that we made up.”

Raja Rozela said the prosecution will also be objecting to witness statements by four other upcoming defence witnesses which mention Mazlina.

As Hisyam indicated the need for time the rest of the day to prepare for the response, High Court judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah then decided to have the trial continue tomorrow.

"I think under the circumstances, we will give the defence time to research, so, I will hear the submissions in reply tomorrow morning,” the judge said.

Later when met by reporters, Raja Rozela explained that the parts in Fadzlette’s witness statement that sought to damage Mazlina’s character cannot be accepted as evidence in court, as Ahmad Zahid’s lawyers had already challenged Mazlina’s credibility when cross-examining her as the 90th prosecution witness.

Citing Section 153, Raja Rozela explained that the defence cannot now come back and introduce defence witnesses to challenge Mazlina’s credibility again on issues which had already been asked during cross-examination.

"So based on Section 153, it should stop there, she has been cross-examined, she has answered, so it should stop there,” she said when explaining the prosecution’s objection.

Section 153 of the Evidence Act provides that no evidence shall be given to contradict a witness who has been asked and already answered any question aimed at discrediting the witness by injuring his or her character, except for two exceptions.

Raja Rozela had however told the High Court earlier today that none of the two exceptions in Section 153 applies to the portions in Fadzlette’s testimony seeking to discredit Mazlina, and had stressed that Section 153 meant these parts of the testimony cannot be admitted as evidence in this trial.

In this trial, Ahmad Zahid is facing 47 charges, namely 12 counts of criminal breach of trust in relation to RM31 million charitable foundation Yayasan Akalbudi’s funds, 27 counts of money-laundering, and eight counts of bribery charges over RM21.25 million in alleged bribes.

Ahmad Zahid is a trustee and had later became the sole signatory of cheques for Yayasan Akalbudi, a foundation formed to eradicate poverty and help the poor.

The 12 counts of criminal breach of trust is in relation to the alleged misappropriation of Yayasan Akalbudi funds, including RM1.3 million via 43 cheques for his and his wife’s credit card bills, RM107,509.55 via three cheques for vehicle insurance and road tax for 20 privately-owned vehicles, a RM1.3 million cheque to the police’s football association, a RM10 million cheque for a loan to Armada Holdings Sdn Bhd, RM360,000 via two cheques to political consultancy firm TS Consultancy & Resources, and over RM17.9 million of funds transferred from Yayasan Akalbudi to law firm Lewis & Co.

During the trial, Ahmad Zahid insisted he had instructed Mazlina to use his personal bank account’s cheques to pay for his and his wife’s credit card bills and said there were sufficient funds in his personal account for such purposes, and had continued to blame Mazlina for using Yayasan Akalbudi cheques to make the credit card payments.

Ahmad Zahid has also insisted that Lewis & Co is a law firm holding money on trust for Yayasan Akalbudi.