KUALA LUMPUR (April 21): Controversial businessman Datuk Seri G Gnanaraja told the Sessions Court on Tuesday that what he testified, that Lim Guan Eng had received RM2 million in bribes for the Penang undersea tunnel project, was true as he (Gnanaraja) has no reason to lie or implicate the former Penang chief minister.
Gnanaraja denied the defence's notion that he has the tendency to lie, especially when claiming he was close to former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor.
He added that Lim is not his enemy, nor has he wronged him.
“There is no motive for me to implicate him. There is no bad intention in my testimony,” Gnanaraja said in answering during re-examination by Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin.
Gnanaraja, 45, is the 37th prosecution witness in Lim’s Penang undersea tunnel graft trial.
The witness added that although the defence had argued that some of his testimonies — like Lim coming to his house at 2am and 3am or Gnanaraja meeting the former chief minister at the Wenworth Hotel in Pudu, Kuala Lumpur — seemed illogical but they had truly happened.
“Although I know many ministers as my friends, they never come to my house at 3am, and the meeting where Lim was picked up at the Wenworth Hotel did take place and there is also a picture of both of us in the car,” he said in response to further questioning from the prosecution.
When shown by the prosecution of his testimony over paragraphs 13 and 14, Gnanaraja admitted that what he said was the truth.
In his witness statement, he said that he had gone to the Wenworth Hotel riding in Consortium Zenith BUCG director Datuk Zarul Ahmad Mohd Zulkifli’s car where Lim was picked up there and seated at the back with him.
“At that time, Lim was wearing the official Penang chief minister attire with the Penang state government logo while I was wearing batik. I understand that Lim was attending a meeting at Publika Hartamas and he wanted to introduce me (Gnanaraja) to Datuk Ewe Swee Kheng but Lim wanted to sit with me to discuss secret financial deals.”
In the short meeting, Gnanaraja said Lim had asked him to prepare a company and its bank account, and the matter with regards to the company (Bumi Muhibah Sdn Bhd) and the bank account was further discussed when Lim came to his house.
“Lim informed me that some time at the end of August he would come to my house to discuss the financial transaction involving the Penang undersea tunnel. During the short time, we (Gnanaraja and Lim) managed to take a selfie while seated at the back of the car.
“When we arrived at Publika, Zarul Ahmad stopped by the side of the road and handed [to us] a bag containing money which was brought from the Eastin Hotel. Lim took the bag containing the money and he (Lim) patted Zarul on the back. I feel the pat on the back was an indication of gratitude for giving him RM1 million as he left the car,” Gnanaraja had said.
No reason to implicate Lim
Gnanaraja added that he has no reason to implicate or lie about Lim in his testimony or about delivering money to the DAP politician.
He added that he received the RM19 million from Zarul Ahmad as a soft loan, and if he were to implicate Lim, he might say the money was for the Penang chief minister, but he did not.
“I only say two bags of money were given (from my home) to Lim when he came that early morning,” he added.
The witness, however, admitted to the defence's notion that he had offered to testify against Lim in this trial when he was charged with cheating at the Shah Alam Sessions Court.
Gnanaraja explained that not all that was stated in WhatsApp messages — as alleged by the defence — was true, as he did make some calls with Zarul Ahmad referring to Lim as “Boss”, a term he also used with Najib.
When asked by DPP Wan Shaharuddin about the defence's allegation that he had cut a deal with the prosecution to have his Shah Alam cheating charge reduced, the witness continued to deny it.
Gnanaraja admitted that he is a bankrupt and that when he met Lim to deliver the money, he was still a bankrupt.
“However, my bankruptcy has nothing to do with this case,” he added.
Earlier during cross-examination, lawyer R S N Rayer, for Lim, tried to paint a picture that Gnanaraja was a conman and a fraudster, following that he had lied to gain deposits from more than 155 investors, claiming that he had got Najib's backing to transform Yayasan Usaha Ventures into a bank.
Gnanaraja seemed evasive and did not want to answer some of the questions posed as he disagreed over the context of what was read in the statement of claim and also the affidavit in the suit as claimed by Lim's lawyer.
In the end, Gnanaraja explained that the suit was settled and the money collected from Yayasan Usaha Ventures Sdn Bhd was returned.
This, he replied to Wan Shaharuddin, showed that there is no such case with regard to the matter as it had already been settled.
Decision on amended charge on May 6 and 7
Lim is on trial for using his position as the then-Penang chief minister to solicit a 10% cut in the RM6.3 billion undersea tunnel project’s profits from Zarul Ahmad, in return for aiding Zarul Ahmad’s company to secure the project.
The 65-year-old former finance minister, who is the current Bagan Member of Parliament and Ayer Putih assemblyman, is also accused of “accepting” RM3.3 million in kickbacks. A purported RM2 million paid on Aug 18, 2017, and Aug 29, 2017, via Gnanaraja, is said to be part of the RM3.3 million.
Lim, who is currently DAP adviser, also faces two counts of dishonest misappropriation of property in the release of two plots of state-owned land, cumulatively worth RM208.75 million, to Ewein Zenith Sdn Bhd and Zenith Urban Development — two property companies linked to the controversial undersea tunnel project.
After Gnanaraja finished his testimony, Sessions Court judge Azura Alwi heard submissions over the prosecution’s bid to amend the charge by removing the word “accepting” from the first charge, which the defence objected to.
Wan Shaharuddin said there is no prejudice as the prosecution is entitled to amend its charge before a decision is made by the court.
Ram Karpal Singh replied that the amendment was being done six years after Lim was charged, and this would prejudice his client as their defence was based on what had been alleged and there could be a necessity to recall some of the witnesses.
“Why make amendments after the 37th witness has testified, and the final witness — the MACC investigating officer — has already testified during examination in chief?” he said.
Azura said the court would make a decision on the amendment when trial resumes on May 6 and 7.