KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 6 — Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s SRC International corruption trial took a twist today after the prosecution invoked impeachment proceedings against the former prime minister for giving contradictory evidence.
Ad hoc prosecutor Datuk V. Sithambaram applied to challenge the credibility of Najib’s testimonies provided to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the latter’s own testimonies given to court on the witness stand in regard to whether Najib had seen certain documents and signed them.
The application was made under Section 145(1) and Section 155(c) on the Evidence Act.
Under Section 155(c) of the Evidence Act, the credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party or with the consent of the court or by the party who calls him by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.According to Sithambaram, Najib had given conflicting statements to MACC and in court with regards to SRC International shareholders’ resolutions in three meeting minutes and a letter of instruction to AmBank the ex-PM allegedly signed, adding that Najib himself agreed there was contradiction.
“If it is a minor contradiction, the court can dismiss it and we can continue to cross-examine the witness.
“However if the court finds the contradiction is material, then the accused has a duty to explain,” he said, adding that the defence cannot preempt the prosecution’s application for the court to look at the contradictory statements.
Previously in court, Najib said he had been shown photocopied documents bearing his signatures by the MACC during the investigation, but when cross-examined, said he had “reservations” and “doubts” at that time.
This then prompted the defence team to make an application for the court to allow a handwriting expert to examine the various documents and establish the authenticity of Najib’s purported signature on them.
Today, Najib’s defence lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, objected to the prosecution’s impeachment application, saying it did not make any sense and would only be relevant if there was an unexplained contradiction in the statements of the witness.
He argued that Najib, as the witness, has already provided an explanation for the difference in the statements.
“It is my duty to point out that the invocation of this process is wrong in law.
“Second, this is laborious and time consuming and ought not to be taken casually. Thirdly, what is it Yang Arif can see, would it be relatively different, is there a dramatic difference?” he added.
Muhammad Shafee also claimed the impeachment proceeding was not bona fide as it sought to “drown” the defence’s application in seeking an expert testimony that is to be heard tomorrow.
Sithambaram then stood up and argued that Muhammad Shafee was “missing the point” of the impeachment.
“My learned friend is missing the point. His explanation here is not true reason and (Muhammad Shafee) not seeing it. If this supplementary statement was in the MACC statement, I wouldn’t be standing here,” he said.
Another of Najib’s lawyers, Harvinderjit Singh also argued that the impeachment application was an attempt to circumvent the verification of the documents by an expert.
He said Najib was not denying that he had signed the documents, but only saying he doubted the authenticity of the documents and wanted them checked.
“On that basis I must say that the application is frivolous,” Harvinderjit added.
Sithambaram later jested that he was the most misunderstood person in court.
“I think I must be the most misunderstood person here. How could the defence say that Najib explained when the contradiction happened this morning?” he asked.
High Court judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, who is presiding over the trial, said there was merit to the prosecution’s impeachment bid, but is expected to only make a decision after the lunch break.
“The court will see the parts of the statements alleged to be contradictory and to make ruling whether to progress with the application,” he said after hearing submissions from both sides.
Should the application be allowed and Najib subsequently found to be not credible, he may face imprisonment for a term up to seven years and a fine for giving false evidence under Section 193 of the Penal Code.
Najib has been called to enter his defence to answer seven charges related to SRC International Sdn Bhd.
Three are for criminal breach of trust over a total RM42 million of SRC International funds while entrusted with its control as the prime minister and finance minister then, three more are for laundering the RM42 million, and the last is for abusing the same positions for self-gratification of the same sum.
