1MDB audit case: MACC investigator unaware of ex-auditor’s testimony
An MACC investigator testified that he was unaware of former auditor-general Ambrin Buang’s testimony in court on the latter’s disagreement with the term “tampering” in the 1MDB audit case.
Senior enforcer Haniff Lami told the Kuala Lumpur High Court today that his initial investigation found that Ambrin (above) was ordered to amend the audit report on 1MDB.
The 16th prosecution witness said this during cross-examination by counsel N Sivananthan, the lawyer for former 1MDB chief executive officer Arul Kanda Kandasamy.
Arul and former premier Najib Abdul Razak are the two accused in the case where the 1MDB audit report was allegedly amended before it was presented to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in March 2016.
Previously on Aug 12 during proceedings before trial judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan, Haniff testified that his investigation reached the conclusion that Najib sought the amendments to shield himself from legal repercussions.
However, during the same trial back on Aug 10, 2020, the sixth prosecution witness Ambrin testified that he disagreed with the word “tampering” being insinuated, reiterating that the amendments to the audit report as the changes were done with his authorisation as then auditor-general.
Former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak
Basis of investigation
During proceedings this morning, Sivananthan asked whether the basis of Haniff’s investigation was on Ambrin being allegedly ordered to amend the report, and the MACC officer agreed.
Sivananthan: Do you know about Ambrin’s testimony in court (on Aug 10, 2020)?
Haniff: I do not know fully.
Sivananthan: Did you know that Ambrin told the court under oath that he made the amendments at his own discretion?
Haniff: I do not know.
Sivananthan: If Ambrin did the amendments at his own discretion, this would be different than what you mentioned in Paragraph 7 of your Witness Statement?
Haniff: Correct
Sivananthan: In this case, the entire investigation was hinged on the (allegation) that Ambrin was ordered to do the amendments by the second accused (Najib)?
Haniff: Correct
Sivananthan: If Ambrin himself said he was not forced to make the amendments and he did it on his own accord as he has the right as he was the then auditor-general of the country?
Haniff: Correct.
However, during re-examination by deputy public prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram, Haniff agreed that Ambrin had also testified in court that the then auditor-general was unhappy with the last-minute changes sought on the 1MDB audit report.
The MACC officer said that the unhappiness also stemmed from Ambrin then being required to work hard to accommodate the last-minute changes.
At the end of proceedings when Haniff was released from the witness stand, deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Akram Gharib told the court that the prosecution hopes to close the case against Najib and Arul on Wednesday next week (Sept 7).
The prosecutor said it is because even though Haniff is the last prosecution witness, Arul’s defence team has yet to be able to cross the 11th prosecution witness Shukry Mohd Salleh, the former principal private secretary to Najib.
He added that as a result, they would recall Shukry for Arul’s lawyers to cross-examine. Najib's lawyers had previously cross-examined Shukry.
Zaini then adjourned proceedings for today and to resume on Wednesday next week.
The charges
Former finance minister Najib is charged with using his position as then prime minister to order amendments to 1MDB’s final audit report before it was presented to the PAC to prevent any action against him.
Arul was charged with abetting the then premier in making the amendments.
The charges are framed under Section 23 (1) of the MACC Act 2009, which specifies a jail term of up to 20 years and a fine of no less than five times the amount of gratification, or RM10,000, whichever is higher.
Basis of investigation
During proceedings this morning, Sivananthan asked whether the basis of Haniff’s investigation was on Ambrin being allegedly ordered to amend the report, and the MACC officer agreed.
Sivananthan: Do you know about Ambrin’s testimony in court (on Aug 10, 2020)?
Haniff: I do not know fully.
Sivananthan: Did you know that Ambrin told the court under oath that he made the amendments at his own discretion?
Haniff: I do not know.
Sivananthan: If Ambrin did the amendments at his own discretion, this would be different than what you mentioned in Paragraph 7 of your Witness Statement?
Haniff: Correct
Sivananthan: In this case, the entire investigation was hinged on the (allegation) that Ambrin was ordered to do the amendments by the second accused (Najib)?
Haniff: Correct
Sivananthan: If Ambrin himself said he was not forced to make the amendments and he did it on his own accord as he has the right as he was the then auditor-general of the country?
Haniff: Correct.
However, during re-examination by deputy public prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram, Haniff agreed that Ambrin had also testified in court that the then auditor-general was unhappy with the last-minute changes sought on the 1MDB audit report.
The MACC officer said that the unhappiness also stemmed from Ambrin then being required to work hard to accommodate the last-minute changes.
At the end of proceedings when Haniff was released from the witness stand, deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Akram Gharib told the court that the prosecution hopes to close the case against Najib and Arul on Wednesday next week (Sept 7).
The prosecutor said it is because even though Haniff is the last prosecution witness, Arul’s defence team has yet to be able to cross the 11th prosecution witness Shukry Mohd Salleh, the former principal private secretary to Najib.
He added that as a result, they would recall Shukry for Arul’s lawyers to cross-examine. Najib's lawyers had previously cross-examined Shukry.
Zaini then adjourned proceedings for today and to resume on Wednesday next week.
The charges
Former finance minister Najib is charged with using his position as then prime minister to order amendments to 1MDB’s final audit report before it was presented to the PAC to prevent any action against him.
Arul was charged with abetting the then premier in making the amendments.
The charges are framed under Section 23 (1) of the MACC Act 2009, which specifies a jail term of up to 20 years and a fine of no less than five times the amount of gratification, or RM10,000, whichever is higher.
Former 1MDB CEO Arul Kanda Kandasamy
The prosecution contended that following a meeting on Feb 24, 2016, a decision was made to remove or alter certain portions of the 1MDB audit report, including dropping the presence of fugitive businessperson Low Taek Jho (Jho Low) at the fund’s board meetings.
Another issue that was allegedly dropped from the audit report was the two conflicting 2014 financial statements of the sovereign wealth fund.
Besides Arul and then chief secretary to the government Ali Hamsa, others who were present at the meeting were Ambrin, former National Audit Department officer Saadatul Nafisah Bashir Ahmad, Shukry, and then Attorney-General’s Chambers representative Dzulkifli Ahmad.
The prosecution contended that following a meeting on Feb 24, 2016, a decision was made to remove or alter certain portions of the 1MDB audit report, including dropping the presence of fugitive businessperson Low Taek Jho (Jho Low) at the fund’s board meetings.
Another issue that was allegedly dropped from the audit report was the two conflicting 2014 financial statements of the sovereign wealth fund.
Besides Arul and then chief secretary to the government Ali Hamsa, others who were present at the meeting were Ambrin, former National Audit Department officer Saadatul Nafisah Bashir Ahmad, Shukry, and then Attorney-General’s Chambers representative Dzulkifli Ahmad.
The correct term should be "manipulating".
ReplyDeleteAmbrin failed to carry out his professional duty with integrity.
Instead he allowed his ows words in the audit report to be manipulated for Spin purposes.