KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 4 ― The Kuala Lumpur High Court will deliver its verdict tomorrow on whether car repossessor Koong Swee Kwan is guilty of murdering  AmBank Group founder Hussain Ahmad Najadi and attempting to murder Najadi's wife, last year.

Judge Datuk Mohd Azman Husin set tomorrow for the verdict after hearing submissions from deputy public prosecutors Yusaini Amer Abd Karim and Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin and counsel Naizatul Zamrina Karizaman who represented the accused.

The accused was also represented by counsel Chee Kuat Lin and Nor Hashimah Abd Rahman.

Yusaini Amer, in his submission, said the accused's defence was merely an afterthought but Naizatul Zamrina argued that it was not so or a bare denial because it was raised at the prosecution stage.

Wan Shaharuddin, meanwhile, told the court that the accused's testimony that  the prosecution's 17th witness, Chew Siang Chee, 45, and seventh witness Cheong Mei Kuen, 50, had fabricated stories about him were not true.

Yusaini Amer, in his submission, had said the accused's defence was merely an afterthought but Naizatul Zamrina argued that it was not so or a bare denial because it was raised at the prosecution stage.

Wan Shaharuddin, meanwhile, told the court that the accused's testimony that the prosecution's 17th witness (SP17), Chew Siang Chee, 45, and seventh witness (SP7) Cheong (Hussain's wife), had fabricated stories about him were not true.

At the proceedings today, Koong, who entered his defence from the dock, had claimed that their testimonies were not true.

“I deny placing any magazine in SP17's car and then taking it back. This is a fabrication entirely,” he said.

He also denied Cheong's testimony that she had seen him in the seconds after her husband and she were shot.

“I deny SP7's testimony because I never approached her or the deceased, and I never at any time held a gun and shot several times in their direction,” .

Koong also told the court that when he was at the police station, the investigating officer, ASP Ananthan Rajoo, had ordered him to put down his signature and thumbprints on a document, the contents of which was in a language he did not understand.

“I was not told what the contents were or translated to me and neither was I informed that I could have rejected a request for my blood sample for DNA testing.

“At the hospital, I was brought to see a doctor by the name of Dr Sue and she also did not explain to me the contents of the document before taking my blood sample,” he said.

The accused also said that he was not brought before an identification parade and no report was made on this and besides, the officer on duty for this (identification parade) was also never called to testify. ― Bernama