KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 30): Testimonies of witnesses about the verbal communications they had had with certain key players in the 1MDB-Tanore case, which the defence had slammed as hearsay, can be accepted as evidence as they met conditions that allow for such exceptions to the hearsay rule, said the judge hearing the case who on Wednesday ordered that Datuk Seri Najib Razak enter his defence in the suit.
Such statements can be accepted if they meet four conditions: that they be either written or verbal, that they must be of relevant facts, that they must be made by a person who cannot be found, and that they were made in the ordinary course of business, said judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah, citing the Evidence Act that was put forth by the prosecution.
The prosecution produced 10 witnesses who testified to their communication with the fugitive Low Taek Jho or Jho Low, the missing former 1MDB chief investment officer Najib's AmBank mandate account supervisor Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil and 1MDB former chief financial officer Terence Geh Choh Heng, and Najib's late principal private secretary, Datuk Azlin Alias, who died in a helicopter crash in 2015.
Among the 10 witnesses were: former 1MDB general counsel Jasmine Loo Ai Swan, Najib’s former aide Datuk Amhari Effendi Nazaruddin, former 1MDB managing director Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim HIlmi, the company's former chief financial officer Azmi Tahir, former CEO Mohd Hazem Abdul Rahman, former 1MDB board member Tan Sri Ismee Ismail, and former 1MDB chairman Tan Sri Mohd Bakke Salleh.
Others included former AmBank customer relationship manager Joanna Yu, who was in charge of Najib’s accounts, former BSI banker Kevin Swamipillai, and a former Najib aide, Datuk Wan Shihab Ismail Wan Ismail.
Sequerah said the matters testified to by the witnesses were relevant to the case as they were about reasons why certain action and conduct were taken by them over matters concerning the running of 1MDB's business, and their belief that the instructions came from Najib, who held an elevated position. Also fulfilled is the condition that the testimonies were on statements by people who cannot be found, he said.
“Upon an examination of the evidence given by the above witnesses, this court's ruling is that communications made between the relevant prosecution witnesses and the persons who cannot be found were made relating to matters pertaining to the running of the affairs of 1MDB and related matters, and thus were in fact made in the course of their ordinary course, therefore falling under the exception of the hearsay rule pursuant to the Evidence Act,” Sequerah said.
“I also find that these oral communications are admissible where the purpose is to establish by the evidence, not the truth of the statement, but the fact that it was made,” the judge added.
In this 1MDB-Tanore case, Najib faces four abuse of power and 21 money-laundering charges for allegedly receiving gratifications worth RM2.27 billion that were siphoned from 1MDB.
Read also:
Origin of Najib's Arab donation letters 'questionable', says 1MDB-Tanore trial judge
1MDB-Tanore: Najib the ultimate decision maker, but failed to make any police report
No motive for witnesses to frame Najib as it would be tantamount to suicide given his powers then, says judge
1MDB-Tanore: Judge’s summary of key findings that led to decision to call the defence
Shafee: Najib’s apology deliberately misinterpreted by politicians
PRIMA FACIE: Najib ordered to enter defence for all charges in 1MDB-Tanore trial, chooses to testify under oath in his defence