KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 21 — Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s aide Maj Gen (Rtd) Datuk Fadzlette Othman Merican Idris Merican today claimed in court that Zahid’s former executive secretary Major Mazlina Mazlan @ Ramly displayed insubordination to her orders and only wanted to take Zahid’s orders.
In his trial over the alleged misappropriation of over RM31 million of Yayasan Akalbudi’s funds, Zahid had tried to blame Mazlina for having used the charity’s cheques for purposes such as paying his and his wife’s credit card bills, and his lawyers had also highlighted Mazlina’s carelessness in handling financial matters such as in cheque preparation and in understanding credit card statements.
While testifying as the second defence witness for Zahid today, Fadzlette criticised the work attitude of Mazlina — who is the prosecution’s star witness. The duo from the military had served Zahid together in the past, with Fadzlette always being the higher-ranked officer as compared to Mazlina.
Fadzlette had started serving then defence minister Zahid in 2011 as his media director and with Zahid’s then executive secretary Mazlina under her direct supervision.
Fadzlette also highlighted that she was the most senior military officer at the Home Ministry and Deputy Prime Minister’s Office when she was seconded there in later years as press secretary to serve Zahid, who became home minister in 2013 and also deputy prime minister from 2015 to 2018. Mazlina was also seconded there.
Fadzlette stressed that military officers are still subject to the Armed Forces Act and subject to the chain of command even when they are working outside of the Defence Ministry or military installations, but said Mazlina had not shown such respect to her as the more senior officer. “While at the Home Ministry, Major Mazlina never respected me, did not follow my instructions, and did not heed any of the orders I gave although it is an order involving official duties, as she viewed that only Datuk Seri Zahid can give orders to her and not other individuals,” she told the High Court.
Later when asked by Zahid’s lawyer Aiman Abdul Rahman, Fadzlette explained that a junior officer is directly under the supervision of the senior officer while serving in the armed forces.
“So Major Mazlina is a junior officer and I was then the most senior officer in the Home Ministry. All military matters should go through me first, she should discuss with me first before taking any actions,” she said.
Claiming that Mazlina had never gone through the chain of command throughout the years of serving Zahid and that this would amount to “insubordination” under the military’s laws, Fadzlette further accused Mazlina of being self-centred.
“Insubordination is an element that cannot be accepted in the armed forces because it is an attitude of (ingkar perintah) disobeying orders to the leader. And in the Armed Forces, we have military ethics, where what we uphold most is esprit de corps. So we need to have cooperation, team spirit, loyalty and a sense of belonging to the organisation, so I don’t see Major Mazlina as having those characteristics because she is more self-centric in nature,” she said.
About cheques and credit card statements
Fadzlette also said Zahid had told her about Mazlina’s carelessness such as her mistakes while handling Zahid’s personal bank account, and noted that Zahid had ordered her to monitor Mazlina’s actions as she had a higher rank in the armed forces.
“About this issue, I had told Major Mazlina about the message relayed by Datuk Seri Zahid. I had asked to be shown the credit card statements and cheques that are prepared before they are brought to be signed by Datuk Seri Zahid.
“However, Major Mazlina always gave various excuses and tricks and never showed me what I had requested. This matter continued on and sometimes due to my continuous official duties, I also overlooked in monitoring and taking up follow-up actions on Major Mazlina regarding this matter,” she said.
Zahid’s lawyer Datuk Ahmad Zaidi Zainal later asked whether it is Mazlina’s responsibility to comply with Fadzlette’s orders when the latter asked to be shown Zahid’s credit card statements.
Fadzlette replied: “To me, she should comply because they were also orders from a senior officer and it involves matters that had been informed to me by Datuk Seri Zahid regarding her carelessness.”
Fadzlette also said she knew of the existence of a stamp bearing Zahid’s signature and said this signature stamp was under Mazlina’s full control and possession.
“This is because I had brought several certificates of appreciation to Major Mazlina to be chopped using Datuk Seri Zahid’s signature stamp on Datuk Seri Zahid’s orders himself,” she said, explaining that this signature stamp was limited for use for certificates and festive cards involving Zahid.
The trial before High Court judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah resumes this afternoon, with the prosecution expected to cross-examine Fadzlette.
The prosecution had objected to paragraphs 16 to 30 of Fadzlette's written witness statement, citing Section 153 of the Evidence Act which prevents further evidence from being brought in to challenge Mazlina's credibility as it had already been challenged previously.
But after hearing arguments from both the prosecution and Zahid's legal team over the past two days, the judge this morning decided to only have paragraph 18, the last line in paragraph 17, and the last line in paragraph 22 removed.
Apart from these three affected paragraphs, the judge decided to keep the rest of paragraphs 16 to 30 in Fadzlette's testimony, ruling that these are facts directly relating to the core issues in the trial and are not collateral issues.
In this trial, 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.
Zahid is a trustee and had later become the sole signatory of cheques for Yayasan Akalbudi.
The 12 counts of criminal breach of trust are 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.
During the trial, 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.
Zahid’s lawyers had also been suggesting throughout the trial that multiple cheques of Yayasan Akalbudi were stamped with Zahid’s signature without his permission and that he had not personally signed those cheques which resulted in multiple charges against him.
