KUALA LUMPUR – Former 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) chairman Tan Sri Mohd Bakke Salleh told the high court here today that he did not meet Datuk Seri Najib Razak to inform him about his resignation as he suspected that the former prime minister was involved in alleged irregular 1MDB monetary transactions.
Bakke, 68, said this when cross-examined by Najib’s lead counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah in the trial of Najib and former 1MDB chief executive officer Arul Kanda Kandasamy for alleged tampering with the 1MDB final audit report.
Shafee: Tan Sri, at one point, you said, you felt sick. In fact, you wanted to resign from the board. Before that did you see the prime minister and tell him why you’re resigning?
Bakke: I didn’t because I had a feeling and suspicion that the prime minister was in the loop and involved in the scheme of things with PetroSaudi International Ltd (PSI). The same feelings were shared by board members. One that confirmed our suspicion, which made us feel disgusted, was the way the US$1 billion (RM4.23 billion) was remitted.
“Thus, I decided I would not want to see him personally. I was not comfortable,” said the 13th prosecution witness.
He said his suspicions arose from the way the deal was asked to be rushed despite the board having misgivings and red flags surrounding the deal.
Previously, the witness told the court that Najib had in September 2009 told the 1MDB board of directors to approve the JV that would eventually see the company pump in US$1 billion, and that the former PM wanted it to be signed in four days.
He said the company’s directors were rushed into making the decision due to the phone call from Najib prior to the meeting.
Shafee: You know you are comfortable to see the prime minister (Najib) anytime. Not for 1MDB but there is Felda; you see him every two weeks. You could have seen him and told him about 1MDB.
Bakke replied, “It was not done because we already firmed up the JV.”
Shafee: The prime minister (Najib) was interested in a government-to-government PSI deal, was there any more suspicion?
Bakke: I understand, but why the need to work in such a hurried fashion? That was the discomfort of me and the board.
Shafee: I’m just trying to understand why you never went to see the prime minister? What is it that you were suspicious of him? No need suspicion, he was in on the deal. He liked the deal to be done.
Bakke: My suspicion was why expedite this deal and position to do it in a hurried fashion? When you are pressed to do something against a professional approach, then the board has to ask why we have to do this?
Shafee: Aren’t you barking at the wrong tree? Why blame the PM when management were directly under you? Why would he (Najib) micromanage? He could not possibly micromanage.
Bakke: You have to look at the context of the entire project (the JV). If you look at a point in time, it’s specific. We were not pleased with what happened; my own conclusion is that if I did not attend to the phone call of the prime minister, the board wouldn’t have rushed through the deal. This is why my suspicions came. The manner in which instructions came. If only the prime minister had not spoken to me and got Jho Low to give me the phone, we would have looked at this as a proper proposal and done it properly.
Meanwhile, when re-examined by deputy public prosecutor Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram, Bakke said that Najib’s telephone call had caused the board to “race through the process”.
Najib, 68, is charged with using his position to order amendments to the 1MDB final audit report before it was presented to the Public Accounts Committee to avoid any action being taken against him, while Arul Kanda, 45, is charged with abetting Najib in making the amendments to the report, to protect the ex-PM from being subjected to action.
The offences were allegedly committed at the Prime Minister’s Department Complex, Federal Government Administrative Centre, Federal Territory of Putrajaya between February 22 and 26, 2016.
Both of them were charged under Section 23(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, which provides for a jail term of up to 20 years and a fine of no less than five times the amount of gratification or RM10,000, whichever is higher, upon conviction.
The trial before judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan continues tomorrow. – Bernama, April 12, 2022
