KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 20 — Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s former executive secretary Major Mazlina Mazlan @ Ramly is biased against her former employer and should be seen as someone who will not testify truthfully in his trial, his lawyer said today.
Throughout Ahmad Zahid’s trial over his alleged misappropriation of RM31 million of charity Yayasan Akalbudi’s funds, he and his lawyers have tried to put the blame on Mazlina for using Yayasan Akalbudi’s cheques for purposes not related to the charity’s aims of eradicating poverty and helping the poor — such as paying Ahmad Zahid and his wife’s credit card bills.
Yesterday, Ahmad Zahid called in his former press secretary Maj Gen (Rtd) Datuk Fadzlette Othman Merican Idris Merican to testify as his second defence witness in the trial.
But the prosecution had objected to parts of Fadzlette’s written witness statement, as those portions were seen as trying to discredit Mazlina. Mazlina was the prosecution’s star witness against Ahmad Zahid, and had previously completed her testimony as the 90th prosecution witness.
Ahmad Zahid’s lead defence lawyer Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik today tried to justify why Fadzlette’s court testimony — which the prosecution says was aimed at attacking Mazlina’s credibility — should be accepted in full by the High Court.
Hisyam claimed that Mazlina was purportedly biased against Ahmad Zahid, and that this was why Ahmad Zahid’s defence witness Fadzlette can give court testimony that may suggest such purported bias.
“We say she is biased, biased in the sense, she is here in court to give evidence against the accused person, her former employer. Under such circumstances, she cannot be objective, she was called by the prosecution and strong inference can be made she will not give evidence in a straight and truthful manner. So we are covered by Exception 2 of Section 153.
“In conclusion, we say the objection by the prosecution is misconceived, apart from Paragraph 18,” he said.
The prosecution wants the High Court to reject paragraphs 16 to 30 of Fadzlette’s witness statement due to Section 153 of the Evidence Act, which would prevent Ahmad Zahid from bringing in more evidence to attack Mazlina’s credibility after having already having the chance to do so when she was testifying.
Section 153 of the Evidence Act provides that no further 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.
In trying to ask the High Court to accept Fadzlette’s entire witness statement, Hisyam today conceded that paragraph 18 may have to be removed due to Section 153, but argued that the other paragraphs should be retained.
Hisyam argued that Section 153 cannot be used to strike out or to remove the disputed parts of Fadzlette’s testimony, claiming that what Fadzlette had mentioned regarding Mazlina are core issues or main issues related to the criminal breach of trust charges against Ahmad Zahid.
Alternatively, Hisyam sought to argue that Exception 2 of Section 153 allows Ahmad Zahid’s lawyers to bring in the disputed parts of Fadzlette’s testimony as it would show alleged bias by Mazlina as a court witness.
Lead prosecutor Datuk Raja Rozela Raja Toran noted that Ahmad Zahid’s lawyers had previously remarked in court that there is a “bad feeling” between Fadzlette and Mazlina, but said this trial is not aimed at resolving such purported bad feelings between the duo and highlighted the risk of losing sight of the real issue in the court case.
Raja Rozela argued that the defence’s sole purpose of introducing Fadzlette as a witness is to tell the court that Mazlina is allegedly not a good person and complains about petty things, but said such matters are collateral matters or not the main issues in the case and should not be accepted by the High Court as evidence.
Raja Rozela pointed out that it would otherwise cause “prejudice” against Mazlina, as she had already completed her testimony as a court witness previously and would not be able to respond to Fadzlette’s remarks in court against her.
“The witness is not there to answer some of the matters that has been raised. It is not fair to Major Mazlina to put her down here at this stage, to find her not a trustworthy person,” she said.
Raja Rozela also stressed that the disputed parts of Fadzlette’s testimony cannot be accepted by the court under either Exception 1 or Exception 2 of Section 153, arguing that these two exceptions cannot apply to preserve Fadzlette’s testimony in full.
“What Exception 2 talks about is about circumstances where a witness came to court to say that he is biased, or he was corrupted, or he was forced to give evidence against the other party, and there is none in the evidence before Your Lordship.
“The facts during cross-examination or even during examination-in-chief, nothing to suggest that Major Mazlina had came to court with a biased attitude or was driven with ill motive of that sort to give evidence against her former boss,” she said when saying Exception 2 cannot be used to save the disputed parts of Fadzlette’s testimony.
Raja Rozela explained that the questions which Ahmad Zahid’s lawyers had asked Mazlina in court during cross-examination was not about whether she was biased or had ill motives against her former boss Ahmad Zahid.
Citing Section 153, Raja Rozela said Ahmad Zahid’s lawyers cannot now try to bring in more evidence to further attack Mazlina’s credibility, since their attack on her credibility should have ended at the cross-examination stage.
“The court must not be influenced by the challenge on her character, because Major Mazlina’s credibility has already been challenged in cross-examination. The question has been asked whether the accused gave her instructions, questions had been asked about cheques and she answered. Those questions and answers in cross-examination is sufficient for Your Lordship to make a finding whether or not she is a credible witness, and the buck stops there,” she said.
Raja Rozela yesterday said the disputed parts of Fadzlette’s testimony are “irrelevant”, arguing that they are only collateral or secondary issues which would not help the High Court in deciding on the criminal charges against Ahmad Zahid.
Hisyam later responded today by urging the High Court not to accept the prosecution’s objections to the disputed parts of Fadzlette’s court testimony, claiming that Ahmad Zahid’s right to a fair trial could be affected.
“If you were to accept the submissions by the prosecution, it would be tantamount to depriving the accused to mount his defence effectively, amounting to a breach of the right to fair trial under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution,” he argued.
Hisyam again highlighted that Mazlina had came to court to give evidence against her former boss, suggesting that the High Court judge “can come to the inference there was hostility” between Mazlina and Ahmad Zahid based on the “tenor” of the evidence she had given in court.
Hisyam suggested that Mazlina’s court testimony may not be impartial and may be biased, and that this would allegedly result in Exception 2 of Section 153 applying to preserve Fadzlette’s testimony in full.
After hearing both sides, High Court judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah said he will deliver his decision tomorrow on the prosecution’s objections to paragraphs 16 to 30 of Fadzlette’s testimony being accepted as court evidence.
In this trial, Ahmad Zahid is facing 47 charges, namely 12 counts of criminal breach of trust in relation to over RM31 million of 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 become the sole signatory of cheques for Yayasan Akalbudi.
The 12 counts of criminal breach of trust is in relation to the alleged misappropriation of Yayasan Akalbudi funds, namely 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.
