THE Kuala Lumpur High Court today delivered a sharp and stinging rebuke to plaintiffs and their lawyer Colin Pereira seeking to compel Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to testify, with Judicial Commissioner Datuk Muhammad Adam @ Edward Abdullah ruling that the subpoena was baseless, oppressive, and unsupported by evidence.
The move arose in a civil suit brought by 12 plaintiffs against industrialist and philanthropist, Datuk Vinod Sekhar and his wife, over alleged financial dealings from over 20 years ago.
In a firm oral decision, the court set aside the subpoena filed by the plaintiffs’ lawyers Messrs Goh Wong Pereira, finding that the applicant had no direct involvement whatsoever in the disputed transactions at the heart of the case.
Muhammad Adam made the ruling after hearing submissions from senior counsel for Vinod, Datuk Seri Rajan Navaratnam and senior counsel for Anwar, Sanjay Mohansundram.
The plaintiffs had argued that Anwar was a “material witness”, claiming his name had been used by the first defendant to project credibility and deflect scrutiny. But the court was unconvinced.
“A name appearing in an email does not by itself make the bearer of that name a material witness,” the judge said, warning that accepting such reasoning would render trials unmanageable.
The court noted that Anwar, as the applicant, was not alleged to have received funds, made representations, entered into any agreement, or participated in the relevant company or scheme.
There was also no allegation of conspiracy.
Crucially, the plaintiffs’ own evidence undermined their position.
Their sole witness Graham David Bell, admitted under cross-examination that there was “not a shred of evidence” showing the applicant’s name had been used to solicit investments or monies.
The judge stressed that subpoenas are not issued as of right, and the burden lies squarely on the requesting party to prove that a witness is necessary for the just resolution of the case.
“The witness must be someone who has seen the facts or knows the facts,” he said.
Photographs, social media posts, and alleged associations cited by the plaintiffs were dismissed as insufficient, at best showing acquaintance but not personal knowledge of any transaction.
The court also rejected the notion that a witness could be compelled to attend simply in the hope that useful evidence might emerge during cross-examination, describing such an approach as impermissible.
Finding that the plaintiffs had failed to meet the required threshold, the judge ruled that compelling the applicant’s attendance would be oppressive and a misuse of the court process.
The subpoena, dated January 15, was accordingly set aside in full, with the court concluding that no useful purpose would be served by forcing the applicant to testify.
In a final blow to the plaintiffs, the court awarded costs of RM20,000, underscoring the seriousness of improperly invoking the court’s coercive powers. - June 19, 2026
