KUALA LUMPUR (July 22): Former attorney-general Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali seemed disinterested and at times self contradictory when testifying in the RM10 million defamation suit he filed against DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang, the High Court noted.
Justice Datuk Azimah Omar, who had dismissed the suit, described in her 100-page judgement released on Thursday (July 21) that it was most telling and revealing evidence that Apandi overtly showed disinterest and indifference to elementary rule of law and even common sense.
The court noticed this when Apandi was questioned continuously by Lim's lawyers over absolving Datuk Seri Najib Razak by accepting the argument that the amount of more than RM2.6 billion that the former prime minister received was from a Saudi royalty.
“Although with utmost respect, this court is pressed to express its disdain to the sordid extent of the plaintiff's self-contradictory testimony, evasiveness and outright untruth.
“It is not exactly rocket-science to appreciate the issue of the RM2.6 billion (which Apandi had declared as donation) would be the core and fulcrum to his very own case swings and tilts by. It would be a grave remiss if the plaintiff were to avail himself to this court, without being candid and without being fully equipped to the brim to justify his magnanimous decision to prefer the donation narrative to exonerate Najib,” the judge said.
Apandi had sued Lim for defamation over an article published on his blog titled “Dangerous fallacy to think Malaysia’s on the road to integrity” that was published in 2019.
Touching on Apandi's press conference on Jan 26, 2016, where the former attorney-general accepted the donation narrative and absolved Najib, Justice Azimah pointed out that Apandi seemed to have contradicted himself when cross-examined by Lim's lawyers.
She said that it was well known in the public domain that the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) and other task forces had recommended criminal charges or at least in-depth investigation into the “fantastical donation” and the SRC International Sdn Bhd monies.
Apandi had said that the MACC itself had met and recorded statements from the donors, she noted.
However, Justice Azimah noticed that when cross-examined over the press statement in which Apandi brazenly announced that a delegation had flown to Riyadh and personally met the alleged donor himself, the former attorney-general seemed to have contradicted and admitted that the delegation did not meet nor speak to the donor.
This was evident in Apandi's testimony when he testified that the "Saudi Prince refused to meet anybody”.
‘It was a total contradiction’
This, Justice Azimah noted, is one of the grounds that Lim had suggested that Apandi should be investigated for absolving Najib and covering up the scandal in 2015.
“The contradiction is not merely an error but instead a total contradiction. It is indeed suspicious and reasonable to ponder the necessity to be deceptive about the critical proof of the alleged donation by the Saudi royal family.
“Why would the AG bend the truth about the meeting and recording [of] the statement by the alleged donor? Why would the AG declare to the world that the delegation met the donor (and obtained confirmation from the donor), while it was well within his knowledge that his delegation did not even speak or meet with the fabled donor,” she asked.
“The court is utterly confounded by the plaintiff's testimony admitting to adopting the donation narrative as a whole, although in gross absence of direct evidence and in preference to the delegation's hearsay evidence. It is right there that Apandi's own testimony exhibited a plain, disinterested, evasive and disassociated attitude to investigate the donation further,” she said.
The judge also admonished Apandi for not even remembering the name of the purported Saudi royal donor who allegedly made the donation.
This, she stressed, was critical information and justified Lim's imputation (in his statement) that Apandi should be investigated.
The judge also pointed to the judgement written by Justice Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali in convicting Najib and disregarding the Arab donation argument, which decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
“The court is mindful of those findings and do not intend to re-litigate these facts but it is well-within this court's jurisdiction to appreciate and consider these facts,” she added.
Justice Azimah also pointed to former MACC panel member Datuk Lim Chee Wee's testimony that the MACC wanted to investigate further but Apandi had said no.
The court also questioned Apandi's move to close the investigation papers by citing no further action (NFA) after the infamous press conference, when the former attorney-general himself said he did not intend to bar any further investigation from the agencies.
“The court is inclined to agree that NFA means Apandi had closed investigations. How can the plaintiff insist that the investigations are closed when he has already come to the conclusion that Najib has done no wrong and is receiving the ‘fantastical’ donation narrative,” she added.
“His (Apandi's) own witness had testified that the plaintiff has insisted on concluding investigations, although the task force recommended continued investigations,” she added.
Justice Azimah concluded after highlighting other factors that Apandi had failed to prove his claim of defamation on a balance of probabilities and the court had accepted Lim's defence of qualified privilege, justification with regard to the case.
In dismissing the suit, Justice Azimah ordered Apandi to pay RM80,000 in costs. Apandi had indicated that he is appealing the High Court decision.