KUALA LUMPUR – The high court heard today that Datuk Seri Najib Razak tried to prevent the earlier version of the audit report on 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) from being presented to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to hide his and Low Taek Jho’s misdeeds in the sovereign wealth fund.
Senior deputy public prosecutor Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram in his closing submission said Najib’s act of requiring the contents of the earlier version of the audit report to be discussed and reviewed prior to the PAC presentation violated Section 8(3) of the Audit Act 1957.
He said Najib called for a meeting on February 22, 2016, with the then auditor-general, Tan Sri Ambrin Buang, who is the sixth prosecution witness (PW6), to discuss the audit report before requesting changes to be made.
“The meeting requiring PW6 to discuss the contents of the original audit report was a violation of the secrecy injunction and a glaring contravention of Section 8(3) of the Audit Act 1957,” he said.
Sri Ram further submitted that Najib used his position to instruct his principal private secretary at that time, Tan Sri Shukry Mohd Salleh, to ensure that Jho Low’s name was removed from the audit documents.
Najib’s counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah countered that there were no specific instructions given by Najib to amend the audit report.
“His instructions were general in nature and he merely asked the 15th prosecution witness (PW15), Arul Kanda, to defend the interests of 1MDB and that the Audit Department stayed within the scope of the audit which was to verify the accounts of 1MDB.
“In cross-examination, Arul Kanda agreed that whatever clarifications that were made were backed up with documents and that he was never asked to manipulate the truth,” he said adding that PW6 positively said there were no specific instructions given by Najib to amend or remove anything from the audit report.
The lawyer further said that former National Audit Department (NAD) audit director Saadatul Nafisah Bashir Ahmad (PW7) also agreed during cross-examination that no one had restrained her or the NAD from making any adverse comments in the audit report.
Meanwhile, lawyer Datuk N. Sivananthan representing Arul Kanda submitted that it was pertinent to note that the evidence of PW15 is deemed accepted by the prosecution through their failure to challenge PW15’s evidence through an impeachment proceeding or at the very least, applying to treat PW15 as a hostile witness.
He said Arul Kanda had been transparent and answered all questions posed by the prosecution and Najib’s counsels.
“There was nothing to suggest that he was being dishonest. There was never a moment when he hesitated to answer a question. For the prosecution to say now that my client was not honest is unfair. I pray that my client is acquitted and discharged from this charge,” he said.
Judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan set January 30 next year to decide whether the two accused will be acquitted or ordered to enter their defence on the audit tampering case.
Najib, 69, 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 Najib from being subjected to action. – Bernama, November 15, 2022
.jpg)
