KUALA LUMPUR (Aug 5): Senior lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah is objecting to a significant portion of politician Tony Pua’s witness statement in the US$5.64 billion 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) trial, telling the court that most of his statement is “opinion and hearsay”.
Pua — who had served as a member of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in Parliament and had been integral to its 1MDB investigations from 2015-2016 — took the stand on Wednesday as the second plaintiff witness for 1MDB in the civil trial brought by the sovereign wealth fund against former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and others. However, Shafee, who is the lead counsel for Najib, had objected to Pua’s prepared witness statement, which Pua was to read out in court before Judicial Commissioner Mohamad Redzuan Idrus.
“All this is opinion. He is giving evidence as though he is the chief investigator — almost in the position of the Inspector-General of Police — on matters that he only knows from second-hand sources. In fact, he is merely a second-hand source,” Shafee told the JC about the witness statement.
Shafee claimed that Pua’s witness statement on parts involving certain PAC members and Najib’s role in proceedings are merely based on Pua’s opinion.
“He is almost suggesting that my client was involved in sabotaging the PAC hearings. That is opinion,” Shafee told Redzuan.
Shafee also claimed that Pua had heavily relied on news articles from portals as his evidence.
“Where he relies on Hansard, I have no objection. But where he relies on Malaysiakini, Free Malaysia Today, The Malaysian Insider, The Edge or other media reports — those are inadmissible,” he said.
Redzuan then asked Shafee if he was sure he wanted to proceed with the application to expunge certain paragraphs from the 47-page witness statement to “offer an opportunity for an amended, fresh witness statement”.
However, Shafee told Redzuan that he wanted to submit his objections to Pua’s statement to the court so that the court can “appreciate the context” of the objections.
The US$5.64 billion civil suit filed by 1MDB is one of several against Najib, which centres on allegations that he breached his fiduciary duties and abused his positions as prime minister, finance minister, and chairman of 1MDB’s board of advisers, causing the sovereign wealth fund to suffer billions of ringgit in losses.
Shafee said the crux of his objections are that Pua is seen to be giving his “own account and opinion”, instead of relying on official transcripts such as the Parliament’s Hansard and the official notes of proceedings of the PAC in his witness statement.
“If he had simply referred to Hansard, I would have no issue. Likewise, if he relied on the PAC report or the official notes of proceedings, I would have no objection, because those are official parliamentary records. Instead, he gives his own account and opinion,” he said.
Shafee highlighted that Pua’s witness statement talks about the PAC investigation and its limitations in the investigation, but only used news portal articles to reference the PAC investigation.
“He was indeed a member of the PAC; but is any of this actually recorded in the PAC report or the proceedings? If so, tender those documents. Do not replace them with personal opinion.
“He goes on to say that bank statements were never provided to the PAC and that documents identifying the ownership of Good Star Ltd were never produced,” Shafee said.
“If these matters appear in the PAC report or its proceedings, then produce those official documents. Instead, he substitutes them with his own opinion,” he added.
Shafee also said that Pua relied heavily on a United States Department of Justice (DOJ) forfeiture complaint on 1MDB, saying that it is not an established fact.
“He (Pua) is treating the allegations in that complaint as established fact,” he said.
“A witness of fact is supposed to testify to the facts,” he added.
Redzuan then asked Shafee to identify which parts relate to the proceedings, which issues are to be tried, and which parts are outside of Pua’s personal knowledge.
In response, counsel Lee Shih, appearing for 1MDB, submitted that Pua's references to the chronology of events were intended only to establish that various events, press releases, and reports had taken place.
"They are there only to describe the political climate in Malaysia at that point in time. We are not calling Mr Tony Pua to prove the underlying truth of those allegations. We rely on these references only to establish that certain events occurred, whether through parliamentary statements, PAC proceedings, or the Auditor-General's report. My learned friend is free to cross-examine the witness on those facts," he said.
Lee added that Shafee himself had acknowledged that Pua was not being called to prove the truth of the matters referred to in his statement, as he was not an expert witness.
The trial was adjourned for the day as Redzuan gave time to Lee to prepare his oral and written submissions before the court when the trial resumes on Thursday.
Pua will then take the stand once Redzuan makes a decision on the matter.
The US$5.64 billion civil suit filed by 1MDB is one of several against Najib, which centres on allegations that he breached his fiduciary duties and abused his positions as prime minister, finance minister, and chairman of 1MDB’s board of advisers, causing the sovereign wealth fund to suffer billions of ringgit in losses. The suit, brought together with three 1MDB subsidiaries, seeks to recover losses allegedly arising from four major phases of the 1MDB scandal — the Joint Venture, Power Purchase, Aabar-BVI, and Tanore phases — with 1MDB claiming that Najib played a central role in approving or facilitating transactions that enabled the misappropriation of its funds.
The civil action is separate from Najib’s concluded criminal 1MDB trial, in which he was convicted over the misappropriation of RM2.3 billion in 1MDB funds. While the criminal proceedings were aimed at determining guilt and punishment, this US$5.64 billion civil suit is intended to recover losses allegedly suffered by 1MDB from Najib and the other defendants.
In the original suit, 1MDB and the four subsidiaries had filed the then-US$8 billion suit in 2021, where 1MDB along with 1MDB Energy Holdings Ltd, 1MDB Energy Ltd, 1MDB Energy (Langat) Ltd, and Global Diversified Investment Company Ltd (previously known as 1MDB Global Investment Ltd) were named as plaintiffs.
They had named Najib and six other former senior 1MDB staff, all of whom are still missing or have fled the country, as defendants.