KUALA LUMPUR (July 7): The defence in former youth and sports minister Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman's criminal trial is seeking to impeach star witness Rafiq Hakim Razali over the witness' contradictory statements.

Lead defence counsel Gobind Singh Deo informed the court that Rafiq's oral evidence was inconsistent with the witness statement provided to the defence.

"[We] are saying neither of them are true but they are contradicting each other, it's [due to] the contradiction we want to impeach his credibility as a witness," the counsel said.

Rafiq, the prosecution's 13th witness, has been on the stand since Tuesday (July 5) and the defence has incessantly pointed out contradictions in the 32-year-old's testimony, leading them to seek impeachment.

However, there is a novel point of law to be decided revolving around Rafiq's written witness statement, which was not tendered in court.

The former assistant treasurer of Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu), who is central to the first charge of criminal breach of trust (CBT) against Syed Saddiq, gave oral evidence instead.

Speaking to reporters after the proceedings on Thursday, Gobind explained that in circumstances where previous statements made are inconsistent with the ones made in court, the procedure would be to request a copy of the statement given to the police or the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

"The judge will look at it to see if there is a contradiction, that is what happens when there is no witness statement," he said, but that is not the case here.

He added: "Then the question is [what is] the procedure to be applied here."

Earlier in open court, Judicial Commissioner Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid also said it is an interesting question as to how the court would approach the matter.

"We have to be very careful about this. We don't want to commit any procedural mistakes.

"I don't want anything that could potentially prejudice the accused to be wrongly admitted," he said.

He asked both prosecution and defence to do a bit more reading on the matter and adjourned the matter to Friday.

Earlier this morning, Gobind highlighted more contradictions over an alleged meeting that took place at Syed Saddiq's house after the 'Sheraton Move' which led to the change of government in early 2020.

Rafiq testified in court on Thursday that during the said meeting, Syed Saddiq had instructed him and Bersatu Youth assistant secretary Ahmad Redzuan Mohamed Shafi to withdraw RM1 million after inquiring about the balance in the party's account.

However, Gobind highlighted the contradiction in Rafiq's written statement where Rafiq said he received instructions through a WhatsApp call from Syed Saddiq instead.

Gobind: Do you agree that it contradicts what you said in court?

Rafiq: Agree.

Gobind: [You said] in the discussions [at the house] Syed Saddiq instructed you [to withdraw the money]. That is not true...

Rafiq: I think I was confused.

Gobind: My question is do you actually remember?

Rafiq: I remember [he asked] me the balance in the account and asked me to withdraw [the money].

Gobind: But you don't remember when and where?

Rafiq: Ya.

Gobind also questioned Rafiq on monies in Armada Bumi Bersatu Enterprise (ABBE)'s account which are related to the second misappropriation charge that the Muar Member of Parliament faces.

ABBE is a company to generate income for the youth wing, which includes activities such as merchandise sales.

In previous proceedings, Rafiq, who is the sole account holder for the said account, verified that RM120,000 was transferred to Syed Saddiq in four transactions. The money was a result of fundraising activities through two dinner programmes.

He also testified that the money was for the use of all Armada members. However, Gobind on Thursday drilled into the discrepancy between Rafiq's oral and witness statements.

Gobind: You testified that the money was transferred into Syed Saddiq's [private] Maybank account. You testified that the monies were for the use of all Armada members for Armada programmes. Are you sure? Please think carefully. You want to correct the statement?

Rafiq: No, I stick by my statement.

Gobind then went on to highlight portions of Rafiq's witness statement where he indicated that the fundraising was for Syed Saddiq's personal campaign for the Muar parliamentary seat.

Gobind: Your evidence during investigation and when this document (witness statement) was prepared indicates that you know the money was for Syed Saddiq's personal campaign in Muar. Do you agree with me that what you are saying in court contravenes what you have said in the statement?

Rafiq: Ya.

On Wednesday, Rafiq also testified to the ordeal he faced while remanded by MACC for six days in 2020. He said he was under tremendous stress.

Gobind then put it to him on Thursday that there could be a possibility that MACC had pressured the youth wing's leaders to implicate Syed Saddiq.

Gobind: [MACC] put pressure on all of you all so you will sing to its tune.

Rafiq: You would have to ask MACC.

Gobind: But you don't deny it.

Rafiq: There is a possibility but you would have to ask MACC the details.

Syed Saddiq has been charged with abetting Rafiq in committing criminal breach of trust involving RM1 million of funds belonging to Bersatu Youth. The offence allegedly took place in March 2020, when Syed Saddiq was chief of the youth wing.

If found guilty of the charge, which is framed under Section 406 of the Penal Code, Syed Saddiq could be jailed for up to 10 years, whipped and fined.

Syed Saddiq has also been charged under Section 403 with misusing RM120,000 in party contributions raised through a Maybank Islamic Bhd account belonging to Armada Bumi Bersatu Enterprise between April 8 and 21, 2018. If convicted for this, he could be jailed up to five years, whipped and fined.

In addition, he faces two charges of engaging in money laundering activities involving two transactions of RM50,000 each — money that is believed to be proceeds of unlawful activities — via his Maybank Islamic account and his Amanah Saham Bumiputera account, on June 16 and 19, 2018.

The latter two charges were framed under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001, which are punishable under Section 4(1) of the same act with a maximum jail term of 15 years, and a fine of not less than five times the amount involved.

The trial continues Friday.