LAWYERS in Najib Razak’s SRC International trial clashed today over the inclusion of testimony by contractor Zulkarnain Mohamad, who was paid RM100,000 to build a store, cabinet and other renovation works at a private residence of the former prime minister.

Attorney-General Tommy Thomas accused the defence of interfering with the presentation of evidence by the prosecution.

“How can the court rule that the prosecution cannot call a witness? If we cannot call witnesses, the case will be stymied,” he told the court presided by Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali.

Earlier, defence lawyer Farhan Read raised a preliminary objection against the witness taking the stand, arguing that Zulkarnain’s testimony was not admissible as it did not pass the threshold required by Section 5 of the Evidence Act.

Farhan said the charges against Najib only involved him taking money and not giving money, hence, the witness was not legally relevant.

“This witness cannot determine whether the accused has committed actus reus and mens rea,” he said.

Farhan added that the court should not be subjected to the prosecution’s theatrics to disseminate the witness’ testimony to the public, referring to the opening statement by Thomas on April 3.

The defence had previously accused the prosecution of prejudicing Najib by detailing things such how much he spent on shopping, which is not linked to his criminal charges.

Deputy public prosecutor Muhammad Saifuddin Hashim Musaimi argued, however, that the witness’ testimony would show that the accused was aware he was committing an unlawful activity.

Najib’s lead counsel, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, said how the money was spent was irrelevant to the case, which only involved the receipt of the funds.
 
Shafee further questioned the relevance of Zulkarnain’s testimony and the prosecution’s need to prove Zulkarnain received the money.  

Deputy public prosecutor Muhammad Saifuddin said as Najib faces three charges under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (Amlatfa) for money laundering, evidence of the receipt of the cheques was necessary to prove the charge.  

Thomas pointed to Section 4 and said the charges should also be read with subsection 2, which provided that spending can form an unlawful activity.

Ad hoc prosecutor V. Sithambaram further submitted that this was to show knowledge of the transaction, and the prosecution was given the opportunity to lead and show the flow of money and how it was used.

“The court cannot be prevented from hearing evidence. On all the (cross-examinations) by the prosecution, they’ve always been given the liberty.

“Let the evidence flow first and then the defence can submit (their objections) later,” he said.

Farhan responded with a laugh, saying that would be putting the horse before the cart.

Thomas responded that the prosecution was being “stymied”.

“How are we supposed to establish our case if we can’t call our witnesses? When every time there’s damning evidence, you cannot call.”

Nazlan later ruled the testimony was relevant to the criminal breach of trust charge under the Penal Code and Section 4(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, and allowed the witness to be examined.

“I find evidence of the spending to be relevant to the case,” he said.

The court then heard the testimonies of Zulkarnain and another witness, Mohamad Zakariya Zearat Khan, who runs a plumbing company.

Both told the court that they received cheques totalling RM156,500 to carry out plumbing work, build cabinets and other renovation works on Najib’s private residence in Jalan Langgak Duta, Kuala Lumpur, in 2014 and 2015.

The trial resumes on Monday. – April 18, 2019.