Kit Siang gets evasive over documents to prove claim
Lim Kit Siang is put on the spot when asked for documentary evidence that Abdul Gani Patail wanted to charge Najib Razak over the 1MDB case.
KUALA LUMPUR: DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang turned evasive when questioned over his contention that former attorney-general (AG) Abdul Gani Patail was sacked by the then government over plans to charge Najib Razak over 1MDB.
Lawyer M Visvanathan, in cross-examining Lim for a lawsuit filed by Gani’s successor Mohamed Apandi Ali in the High Court, pointed out that Lim was merely speculating on Gani’s 2015 removal in his witness statement.
“There were no documents produced to substantiate the claims on his removal. Even Tan Sri Gani did not affirm an SD (statutory declaration) to say he was removed because he was preparing charges against the former prime minister,” Visvanathan said.
Lim responded by saying: “The former MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) chief commissioner previously made a statement on this (the charges). It is on public record.” However, Lim did not state which former commissioner he was referring to.
Visvanathan reminded Lim that he only wanted the witness to confirm the documents produced for the defamation hearing before the court.
“We are not in the political arena. Our courts are governed by rules of evidence. When you said there were charges planned for the PM, then you must prove it.
“However, you failed to discharge your duty in producing the said documents and thus your defence has failed,” Visvanathan said.
Lim then said “the charges (against Najib) were out there”.
High Court Judge Azimah Omar interjected and reminded Lim to provide his answer, on whether he agreed to Visvanathan’s suggestion or otherwise.
“I hope the court will record that this witness took a long time to ponder and refused to answer my question,” Visvanathan added.
Azimah then told Lim that the lawyer wanted to know if Lim had failed to provide documentations to back the claim that Gani’s removal was related to the purported 1MDB charges.
“It appears so,” Lim said.
Apandi is claiming that Lim had defamed him in a 2019 statement, “Dangerous fallacy to think Malaysia is on the road to integrity”.
The former AG, in his suit, has alleged that the Iskandar Puteri MP’s statement depicted him as someone immoral and unethical, without integrity, and who had practised double standards while holding the position of AG.
Meanwhile, to questions by Visvanathan about Lim’s allegation that Apandi refused to cooperate with the US Department of Justice for the 1MDB case, Lim said he did not have any documents to support it.
Previously, Apandi testified that investigations into 1MDB and its subsidiary company SRC International Sdn Bhd were not completed when he left the Attorney-General’s Chambers in May 2018. He reiterated that the investigation papers against the two companies were never closed, although they had been classified as “no further action”.
The hearing continues tomorrow.
Lawyer M Visvanathan, in cross-examining Lim for a lawsuit filed by Gani’s successor Mohamed Apandi Ali in the High Court, pointed out that Lim was merely speculating on Gani’s 2015 removal in his witness statement.
“There were no documents produced to substantiate the claims on his removal. Even Tan Sri Gani did not affirm an SD (statutory declaration) to say he was removed because he was preparing charges against the former prime minister,” Visvanathan said.
Lim responded by saying: “The former MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) chief commissioner previously made a statement on this (the charges). It is on public record.” However, Lim did not state which former commissioner he was referring to.
Visvanathan reminded Lim that he only wanted the witness to confirm the documents produced for the defamation hearing before the court.
“We are not in the political arena. Our courts are governed by rules of evidence. When you said there were charges planned for the PM, then you must prove it.
“However, you failed to discharge your duty in producing the said documents and thus your defence has failed,” Visvanathan said.
Lim then said “the charges (against Najib) were out there”.
High Court Judge Azimah Omar interjected and reminded Lim to provide his answer, on whether he agreed to Visvanathan’s suggestion or otherwise.
“I hope the court will record that this witness took a long time to ponder and refused to answer my question,” Visvanathan added.
Azimah then told Lim that the lawyer wanted to know if Lim had failed to provide documentations to back the claim that Gani’s removal was related to the purported 1MDB charges.
“It appears so,” Lim said.
Apandi is claiming that Lim had defamed him in a 2019 statement, “Dangerous fallacy to think Malaysia is on the road to integrity”.
The former AG, in his suit, has alleged that the Iskandar Puteri MP’s statement depicted him as someone immoral and unethical, without integrity, and who had practised double standards while holding the position of AG.
Meanwhile, to questions by Visvanathan about Lim’s allegation that Apandi refused to cooperate with the US Department of Justice for the 1MDB case, Lim said he did not have any documents to support it.
Previously, Apandi testified that investigations into 1MDB and its subsidiary company SRC International Sdn Bhd were not completed when he left the Attorney-General’s Chambers in May 2018. He reiterated that the investigation papers against the two companies were never closed, although they had been classified as “no further action”.
The hearing continues tomorrow.
Claiming No Further Action means Never Closed is Bullshit.
ReplyDeleteThe Real evasive guy is the one claiming No Further Action means Never Closed.
ReplyDeleteTwisting like a Snake.