.jpg "Datuk Seri Najib Razak is pictured at Kuala Lumpur High Court March 17, 2022. u00e2u20acu201d Picture by Hari Anggara")
KUALA LUMPUR, March 17 — Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s lawyer today tried to suggest that Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi — the former CEO of 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) and its predecessor Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA) had committed wrongdoing in signing documents to enable TIA’s issuance of RM5 billion worth of bonds in May 2009.
Najib’s lawyer Datuk Hariharan Tara Singh suggested this while cross-examining the 13th prosecution witness and former director of both TIA and 1MDB, Tan Sri Ismee Ismail.
In this trial, Najib is facing charges of power abuse and money laundering in relation to the misappropriation of more than RM2 billion from 1MDB.
TIA was established on February 27, 2009 and its ownership had transferred from Terengganu state government via its Mentri Besar Incorporated to the Finance Ministry-owned Ministry of Finance Incorporated in August 2009. TIA was then renamed to be 1MDB on September 25, 2009.
While cross-examining Ismee today, Hariharan repeatedly sought to pin wrongdoing on the ninth prosecution witness Shahrol Azral in relation to the issuance of RM5 billion bonds by TIA in May 2009 or which was before TIA became 1MDB.
Shahrol had actually already completed his testimony over a course of around 40 days from September 23, 2019 to September 3, 2020, but Hariharan repeatedly asked Ismee about what Shahrol had or may have done.
.jpg)
Today, Hariharan highlighted that the TIA board had on May 22, 2009 signed a resolution to suspend the issuance of the RM5 billion bonds or Islamic Medium Term Notes (IMTN) and to suspend Shahrol’s powers as then TIA CEO in relation to the bonds issuance.
Hariharan then presented several documents which Shahrol had later signed days later to enable the RM5 billion bonds to be issued, including a May 25, 2009 subscription agreement and a May 26, 2009 “akad” agreement that also had AmIslamic bank’s compliance department’s rubberstamp on parts of the agreement.
When asked by Hariharan based on just these documents, Ismee agreed that the agreements signed by Shahrol was contrary to the TIA board’s instructions just days earlier not to issue the bond and also agreed that TIA had no powers to execute the agreements following the TIA board’s suspension of the RM5 billion bonds.
Hariharan then suggested Shahrol had withheld the TIA board’s May 22, 2009 resolution — that suspended the RM5 billion bonds issuance — from AmIslamic, suggesting that the bank’s compliance would not have placed its rubberstamp on the May 26, 2009 agreement.
Ismee however suggested that there could have been other documents shown to AmIslamic bank.
“Yup, but I would believe that normally banks would have to see some documents before they enter into agreements such as this, so that’s why I believe that’s why there’s Ambank’s rubberstamp at those clauses you mentioned. From my understanding, they may have viewed certain documents represented by Datuk Shahrol to the bank,” he said, noting that documents would also have to be shown for something as simple as opening a bank account.
“So I’m not sure, there could be other documents that Datuk Shahrol would have presented to the bank,” Ismee said.
Hariharan then suggested there could be two possibilities of Shahrol having either allegedly fabricated another resolution that said to go ahead with the RM5 billion bonds issuance or withheld the May 22 resolution that suspended the bonds issuance, but deputy public prosecutor Mohamad Mustaffa P. Kunyalam then stood up to object.
High Court judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah also pointed out that Shahrol had already “been confronted” when he testified as a prosecution witness in this trial, and also indicated that questions to Ismee as a former board member should be those that are within his knowledge.
Hariharan then sought to explain that he wanted to ask former board members about the events that took place and the documents signed by Shahrol.
Mustaffa however highlighted that Hariharan should have also presented the other parts of the court testimony to Ismee, such as Shahrol’s previous testimony that Najib had given him the go ahead to proceed with the RM5 billion bonds.
“If that is the case, counsel must be fair in addressing the witness, because Shahrol did say he received instructions from the accused to proceed with the IMTN. That should be put to the witness,” Mustaffa said.
The judge then allowed the questions to be asked and suggested that the prosecution could raise these points to Ismee later.
Hariharan then continued to suggest that there was “disobeyance” from Shahrol in signing the documents to enable the RM5 billion bonds issuance, but Ismee said he was not aware of this and also highlighted his own testimony.
“If you read my witness statement, after meeting with Tuanku, Datuk Shahrol informed or told me that this IMTN cannot be suspended, because we had pushed the button,” Ismee said.
What the court previously heard
Previously in September 2019, Shahrol told the 1MDB trial that Terengganu ruler Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin had on May 22, 2009 had ordered him and Ismee to sign a resolution to suspend the RM5 billion bonds issuance.
Shahrol said he had later informed Low Taek Jho of this and that he had then on the same day went to Najib’s house as Low instructed.
Shahrol had also testified that Najib had asked for an explanation of what transpired earlier that day at the Istana Terengganu in Kuala Lumpur, noting that Najib had asked him to “go ahead” and proceed with the RM5 billion fund-raising by saying: “You go ahead, I will talk to Tuanku”.
“I took this as an instruction and mandate from the Prime Minister who is also the Finance Minister to continue the IMTN because he is the minister responsible for giving that government guarantee,” Shahrol had at that time testified.
In November 2021, Ismee had told the 1MDB trial that Shahrol had ---- after signing the May 22, 2009 TIA board resolution to suspend the bonds issuance ---- told him that the bonds issuance could not be postponed as instructions had already been given to the bond’s lead arranger AmBank.
“Datuk Shahrol told me, ‘we have already pushed the button’,” Ismee had said then.
Najib’s lawyer asks about Shahrol and Jho Low
Earlier, Hariharan had also asked Ismee whether he had observed how close Shahrol was with Low during TIA meetings.
However the judge pointed out that such questions would have already been asked to Shahrol when he was testifying as a witness.
“This relationship between Shahrol and Jho Low, I think would have been explored during Shahrol’s time on the stand, isn’t it?” the judge asked.
Hariharan said he wanted to establish this as there would be issues on Shahrol’s alleged wrongdoing on the RM5 billion bonds issuance, but the judge pointed out Shahrol had already been confronted on all these issues and said Ismee may not be in a position to answer all these questions.
Hariharan continued to justify that he wanted to show through TIA directors what Shahrol had done in contrast to Shahrol showing he was acting for the company’s best interests, and then repeated his question to Ismee.
Hariharan: Did you observe, when you were in the board together with Shahrol and during meetings with Jho Low, as to how they interacted, how close were they as opposed to Jho Low’s closeness to you?
Ismee: I didn’t notice.
The trial resumes this afternoon.
