By Murray Hunter
EVIDENCE has emerged that key documents submitted in a defamation suit brought by the British royal charity, the Chartered Management Institute (CMI), in Malaysia against whistleblower Dr Geoffrey Williams were truncated and altered by the charity managers or their former lawyers.
The case centres on efforts to silence discussion of certificates linked to the royal charity that the CMI sells through Malaysian universities and training companies.
According to material now on the court record, the CMI, as the plaintiffs initially filed a truncated set of PowerPoint slides which omitted critical slides that, Dr Williams contends, support his pleaded defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege.
Following a disclosure application, the CMI lawyers at Selva Mookiah and Associates filed further documents from the CMI of the full original PowerPoint slides presented by the CMI representatives, Zain Munir and Jamil Karkach, at a CMI Malaysia event in Kuala Lumpur on 30 January 2024.
A direct comparison between the earlier exhibit and the later submission shows that important, material slides were selectively excluded from the original filing.
Dr Williams, appearing as a litigant in person, has formally notified the court of the discrepancy.
In an urgent formal notice, he states that the earlier exhibit was “selectively edited and altered to exclude material facts.”
He has also asked the court to determine whether the conduct raises potential criminal issues under the Malaysian Penal Code (Act 574), including fabricating false evidence for use in a judicial proceeding, corruptly using evidence known to be false or fabricated, fraudulent alteration or destruction of a document to prevent its production in court; and provisions on abetment of crimes under Sections 107–114 of the Penal Code.
He further argues that reliance on altered or disputed trial bundles constitutes an abuse of process and creates procedural flaws for the trial fixed for 21–24 September 2026. Particular concern is raised about the trial proceeding by hybrid mode when those allegedly responsible for the documents are based in the United Kingdom and would not be present in court.
Dr Williams has requested immediate court directions, including a comparison of the submitted documents against the complete, unedited original set of slides to determine their authenticity.
He also requested the reclassification of any altered or truncated versions strictly as Part C (Disputed Documents) under the Rules of Court 2012 and an urgent case-management hearing before 21 September 2026 to address the evidentiary issues.
Williams stated that he was reserving his right to apply to strike out the action under Order 18 rule 19 for abuse of process, together with costs.
The developments place the integrity of the trial bundles and the fairness of the forthcoming hearing under direct scrutiny. The court has yet to rule on the notice and the related applications made in Williams’ letters to the court.
The local Malaysian lawyer representing the CMI, Selva Mookiah, has stated that, “The Plaintiffs [the CMI] unequivocally deny all allegations in the Said Letters, in seriatim.” – September 11, 2026
