KUALA LUMPUR (April 7): A police inspector told the High Court on Monday that the police had received an anonymous tip-off at about 5am on Sept 6, 2024, over a purported firearm hidden in a car owned by Muhammad Yusoff Rawther that led to a police raid, arrest and drug trafficking charge.

Inspector Wan Muhammad Wan Adli said he was unaware that Yusoff had an ongoing civil case against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Yusoff was Anwar's research officer when Anwar was the opposition leader.

When quizzed by deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Mohd Sabri Othman, the police officer said that upon receiving the anonymous tip, he informed his superior, who instructed for a stakeout on the car that allegedly had the firearm near a condominium at Bukit Kiara.

“I went there with four others (lower-ranked officers) and waited for about two hours. Then at about 9.25am, we saw a man approaching the said car and I introduced myself as being from the police.

“Upon opening the door, we conducted a physical examination on the car, which was parked by the roadside outside the condo, and found the two fake pistols wrapped in a black bag beneath the front passenger seat,” Wan Muhammad said.

The witness said as traffic was getting heavier by the road side, he and the police officers decided to bring the accused and his Nissan Teana car bearing the licence plate TMH 6391, to the KL police contingent headquarters.

After further inspection, the police allegedly found a stash of cannabis weighing 300.1 grams that was hidden in the back passenger seat, which the police subsequently removed.

When shown pictures of the fake pistols and the purported cannabis, Wan Muhammad further agreed with the DPP that those were the items seized and the pictures showed where the items were seized from within the car.

When cross-examined by Yusoff’s counsel Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali, Wan Muhammad agreed that the anonymous tip-off had given specific, accurate information with regards to the car, its type, colour and location.

The police officer agreed with Rafique that Yusoff was seen to be having difficulty in opening the vehicle's door when using his car remote.

The police officer said that Yusoff then tried to use the manual key on the driver’s side which proved unsuccessful, and then Wan Muhammad’s four other officers tried to open the other doors to the rear and front passenger seats, but to no avail.

“However, after the accused was asked to use the manual key to the front passenger seat, he was successful and that was where the police recovered the fake pistols,” the inspector said.

Wan Muhammad agreed that possibly between 5am and 7.25am, when the police had arrived for the stakeout, no one had had access to Yusoff’s vehicle.

The police officer disagreed that when he reached the vicinity, he had already known that the purported weapons were inside the car.

Rafique: Do you agree that the car is parked 200 metres outside the condo, and it could be accessed by anyone?

Wan Muhammad: I agree.

Rafique: When the accused arrived at the car door, he seemed to be having difficulty in opening the car door using the remote, as it was not functional?

Wan Muhammad: Yes.

Rafique: When he was having difficulty, it was then that you (Wan Muhammad and the other police officers) approached him and introduced yourselves?

Wan Muhammad: Yes.

However, the inspector disagreed that when introducing themselves to Yusoff, he had told the accused that they suspected there were pistols in his car.

The police officer, who was the prosecution’s first witness, then related the difficulty in opening the car door before Yusoff managed to use the manual key to unlock the front passenger door.

Wan Muhammad said Yusoff showed no expression when shown the police’s discovery of the pistols, and agreed that the accused had denied to them (the police) that the bag was his.

The police witness denied the defence lawyer’s assertion that the drugs found in the car were actually in Yusoff’s control and custody. However, he agreed that Yusoff had declined to sign the police search form when shown the items seized from his car, as he continuously denied they were his.

Wan Muhammad also agreed that two urine tests conducted on Yusoff showed negative for drugs.

The lawyer then showed the witness that about 10 days prior to the incident, Yusoff’s lawyers had produced a witness list to the accused’s civil case (over a sexual attack) against Anwar, and this was objected to by DPP Sabri, who questioned the relevancy with the case.

“The matter involves civil proceedings and should not be brought up in the criminal proceeding as it is not relevant,” said the DPP.

Rafique, who appeared with Datuk Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar, said Yusoff’s defence was entrapment by the authorities and that the defence should be allowed to present their case at the earliest opportunity.

“My client’s defence is that he has been entrapped and that those items were planted, or that he was gamed, following his case with Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. We have to put the foundation (for the defence) by producing various documents and background. This (witness list) is material to unfurling the defence narrative as the prosecution produced theirs,” Rafique said.

In the end, judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin allowed the witness list to the civil case to be marked for identification only, but not as a defence exhibit.

Rafique: Do you agree that seven to 10 days before Yusoff’s arrest, this witness list (to Yusoff’s sexual assault suit against Anwar) was produced in court?

Wan Muhammad: I agree.

However, the witness denied the tip-off was entrapment by the higher-ups.

Then, Rafique produced other court documents including Anwar’s former aide Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak’s suit against Yusoff, and his client’s suit against Anwar’s press secretary Tunku Nashrul Tunku Abaidah, where the High Court had upheld the Sessions Court’s decision where Tunku Nashrul was liable for defamation and ordered to pay RM80,000 in damages.

The defence also produced Yusoff’s cautioned statement, which was recorded two or three days after he was arrested and detained. Wan Muhammad agreed that Yusoff did mention denying that the drugs or pistols were his, and that he was purportedly a victim of Anwar and Farhash.

Rafique: Yusoff said in his cautioned statement that they (Anwar and Farhash) were not satisfied with him over the complaint lodged against them?

Wan Muhammad: Yes.

Yusoff is facing trial where he is charged with trafficking 300.1 grammes of cannabis and the possession of imitation pistols at a roadside near a condominium in Bukit Kiara, here, at 9.25am on Sept 6, 2024.

The drug charge under Section 39B (1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 is punishable under Section 39B(2) of the same Act, which carries a life sentence and also whipping of not less than 12 lashes, if convicted.

For the charge of fake pistol possession, he faces a maximum imprisonment term of a year or a maximum fine of up to RM5,000, or both, if found guilty under Section 36 (1) of the Arms Act 1960.

The hearing before Jamil continues on Tuesday.

Read also:
Anwar-accuser Yusoff Rawther given joint trial for his drug and gun cases, court sets April 7-11 for hearing
Anwar’s former aide files representation to drop drug trafficking, fake gun charges