When cornered, plead ignorance
When lawyers become liars, they have a way of coining new terms that will remain catchwords for a long time to come. If VK Linggam became infamous for his ‘Correct, Correct, Correct’, MACC’s Deputy Director of Prosecution, Anthony Kevin Morais, will forever be remembered for his ‘Tak Tahu, Tak Tahu, Tak Tahu’.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Din Merican wrote a very good piece in his Blog called Rosli Dahlan’s Trial: The Liar Kevin Morais buried in his lies! – You can read it here (http://www.malaysia-today.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31632:rosli-dahlans-trial-the-liar-kevin-morais-buried-in-his-lies&catid=16:from-around-the-blogs&Itemid=100132).
Yesterday was the continuation of lawyer Rosli Dahlan’s trial where Dato’ K Kumaraendran, his lawyer, cross-examined MACC’s Deputy Director of Prosecution, Anthony Kevin Morais. However, instead of replying to the questions posed by Kumaraendran, Kevin Morais replied ‘Tak tahu’ to everything.
As they say, when cornered, plead ignorance. Just say ‘I can’t remember’ or ‘I don’t know’ to every question and you can get away with most things.
As follows is the court transcript, which make very interesting reading indeed. And I really do not need to add anything more to this already very interesting and detailed exchange in court.
So read on!
KLSC Arrest Case: 62-229-07
PP vs Rosli Dahlan
Continued Hearing: 4th May 2010
Judge: Abu Bakar Katar
DPP: Zulqarnain & Sophian
Defence Counsel: Dato’ K Kumaraendran & Chetand Jethwani
Continued Cross-Examination of PW2 Anthony Kevin Morais @ 10.30am
DPP Zulqarnain: I want to make a legal submission. Dato’ Kumaraendran should not be allowed to continue with the cross-examination of Kevin Morais (KM). KM has been on the stand for three days already since December 2009 and January early this year. It is unfair to punish him like that. According to Sarkar on Evidence, this is the mother of all books on evidence, you cannot put a witness on the stand more than three days…….
Dato’ Kumaraendran: The DPP Zulqarnain is very disrespectful to the court in delivering this unsolicited lecture. Kevin only has himself to blame for lying, then twisting and turning in his answers. One question had to become ten questions because he was evasive and in the end he tightens the noose around his neck.
Judge (visibly quite irritated with the Prosecutor): Go on, don’t waste more time.
Q1: Anda setuju tiada apa percakapan dirakam dari Dato Ramli Yusuff (DRY) berkenaan tuduhan terhadap Rosli Dahlan (RD)?
KM: Tidak ada.
Q2: Anda setuju bahawa DRY berada di dalam kedudukan yang terbaik untuk memberitahu mengenai adanya apa-apa hubungan di antara DRY dan RD? Would you agree that DRY is in the best position to state about the relationship between himself and RD?
KM: Tidak semestinya.
Q3: Would you agree, to some extent, that DRY would be in the best position?
KM: Not necessary.
Q4: Kevin, IDD26 is alleged to be issued by one Bonus Circle (BC) to RD. Agree?
KM: Yes.
Q5: If you had taken a statement from DRY, you could’ve gotten an explanation from DRY about this cheque, would you agree?
KM: He was a suspect at that time.
Dato: Answer the question, Kevin. Don’t go beating around the bush la.
KM: I’m not doing so. My answer is ‘not necessarily’.
Q6: Encik Adenan, the lawyer, has said that he acted for BC in the SPA, are you aware of that.
KM: Tak Tahu.
Q7: Are you aware that he has said that he is not on the panel of Hock Hua Bank (HHB)?
KM: Tak tahu.
Q8: Are you aware that Allen Gledhill (AG) only acted for HHB and not for BC, in view of Adenan’s evidence?
KM: Tak tahu.
Q9: Would you now agree with me, in light of the evidence, that Adenan only acted for HHB, and not BC?
DPP: Kevin was not there, he didn’t listen to what Adenan had said. So, whatever that Adenan said, ask Adenan to come back and explain. It is not fair to ask Kevin.
Dato: I am not misleading the court or the witness. I’m stating a question of fact that has already been stated in this Court.
Q10: Are you aware, of the Solictors Renumeration Rules (SRR) and the Practice and Etiquette Rules?
KM: Saya pernah dengar.
Dato: These rules govern conveyancing practice.
DPP: Objection.
Judge: OK, Dato’ please put it on submissions.
Q11: I put it to you: A&G didn’t act for BC, and only for HHB.
KM: Saya tidak setuju, pada pandangan saya itu tak pasti.
Q12: Kevin, would you agree with me, that the basis of the issuance of the notice to RD is the alleged offence committed by DRY?
KM: Benar, Yang Arif.
Q13: Were you aware that DRY was acquitted without his defense being called?
KM: For which offence?
Q14: For the offence of not complying with the notice under section 32.
KM: Saya tidak dimaklumkan. Tak tahu.
Q15: Are you aware, Kevin, that the judge in DRY had made a finding of fact that MSC was a dubious character as he had a string of criminal activities.
KM: Tak tahu.
Q16: Are you aware that there was a finding by the learned judge in DRY trial that there was no fair and thorough investigation to find/ascertain the truth of MSC allegations?
KM: Tak tahu mengenai pandangan Hakim tersebut.
Q16A: Are you aware that DRY was acquitted without his defence being called?
KM: Tak tahu.
Dato (annoyed): Don’t you read newspapers, Kevin?
KM: Tak Tahu.
Dato: Tak tahu baca kah?
KM: Tak Tahu.
[Gallery laughing]
Q17: in view of that, I put it to you, you did not apply your mind in sending a notice to RD.
KM: Tidak benar, Yang Arif.
Q18: Would you agree, Kevin, that the basis that you issued the notice to RD is the allegations made by MSC against DRY?
KM: Benar, Yang Arif. Dan juga report yang dibuat oleh pegawai BPR.
Q19: I referred to you number of police reports, numbers 098/2007, 075/2007 and 072/2007 and 065/2007. I referred to you these reports.
KM: Tak ingat, I can’t remember.
Dato: I will refresh your memory. (Interpreter takes exhibits to Kevin for him to refresh his memory).
Q20: These reports are all hearsay reports. Am I correct? The makers of the reports have no knowledge of the contents of the report?
KM: Maklumat diterima, benar, Yang Arif.
Q21: You agree with me, that RD has no interest or is not a shareholder of the company of BC?
KM: Benar, Yang Arif.
Q22: You also agree that DRY has also no legal or beneficial interest in BC?
KM: Saya tak tahu. Pegawai penyiasat lebih tahu.
Q23: Setujukah anda bahawa Mahkamah di dalam kes DRY, telah memutuskan bahawa notis di bawah s.32 kepada DRY yang dikeluarkan oleh kamu Kevin, adalah tidak sah kerana ia memenuhi keperluan-keperluan di bawah akta?
KM: Tak tahu. I’m not aware.
Q24: Would you also agree with me, that assuming the courts find the notice issued to DRY is bad, it follows, the notice issued to RD is also bad in law?
KM: Tak tahu, I cannot comment on that.
Q25: You were the DPP who appeared initially when RD was charged. You objected for him to be released on bail?
KM: Tidak, Yang Arif.
Q26: You objected for him to be released on personal bond?
KM: Saya tidak ingat, Yang Arif.
Q27: Your submission to the court was, in view of the severity of the charge, a personal bond is inappropriate.
KM: If it’s in the notes, then yes. I can’t remember.
Q28: I suggest to you, when you appeared as a DPP in that case, you knew you were a potential witness.
KM: Saya tidak tahu.
Dato: Come on la, Kevin, you issued the notice under s32 and you want us all to believe that you would not be a witness in that case?
KM: I only received instructions from my superior.
Judge: Put this all in submissions.
Q29: You say you took instructions from superior. Is that you head of department, was it Dato’ Nordin Hassan (NH)?
KM: Ketika itu ya, Yang Arif.
Q30: you were acting from time to time, getting instructions from NH?
KM: Only if I need to hadir ke Court.
Dato (raised tone): You are a DPP, Kevin. You should know. You don’t need to get instructions on whether you need to attend court!
Q31: I put it to you, you were aware that NH was a close friend to DRY, and was a roommate to DRY in university?
KM: Saya tidak ingat.
Q32: Are you aware that RD has been advising NH in certain land matters?
KM: Tidak tahu, Yang Arif.
DPP: Isu dalam kes ini adalah, Kevin issued notis 32. Isu kewujudan perkara-perkara lain seperti arahan dari ketua jabatan, etc., tidak relevan. Saya tak nampak apa relevan NH di dalam kes ini.
Dato: We have filed a civil suit, that there is a conspiracy to send these notices to RD and DRY. I’m sure his issuance of the notice was mala fides. In order for submissions, I must have some evidence, just a few questions, Yang Arif.
Q33: Are you aware that RD had recovered a sum of RM 6.5 million for NH and his family?
KM: Tidak tahu, Yang Arif.
Q34: RD has also acted for NH under personal relationship?
DPP: Bantahan. This is not relevant. I want to again highlight that you must put forward relevant questions. Ini usaha nak memalukan Nordin Hassan.
Dato: What I’m trying to say is that RD has same relationship with NH as DRY had with NH. NH and DRY and RD were together in uni and they know each other since then. For some reasons, NH has become a turncoat against his friends and brothers in the Islamic University for his promotions. NH would destroy RD despite RD having given him favours. Why when RD gave services to ND it was alright, but when RD give services to DRY, he became target of criminal charge? Why the double standards? This is the conspiracy.
Q35: You agree with me that the relationship with RD and DRY and NH are same?
KM: Tak tahu, Yang Arif.
Q36: If you were aware of the relationship, would you have sent the notice to NH?
KM: Tak tahu, I cannot answer the question.
Q37: Finally, I put it to you, the investigation carried out by the IO and from the material before you, it was insufficient to identify RD as an associate of DRY?
KM: Tak tahu, saya tidak bersetuju.
Q38: According to you, RD did not comply with the notice sent to him?
KM: Benar, Yang Arif.
Q39: You then directed the IO to effect arrest?
KM: Benar, Yang Arif.
Q40: The IO was briefing you as to the situation of the arrest of RD?
KM: Tidak. Tak tahu, Yang Arif.
Q41: Are you aware that the 1st party of MACC officers went to see him and requested him to come to MACC office to assist in investigation?
KM: Saya tidak tahu apa yang berlaku.
Q42: Now, are you aware, that RD told the IO and officers that it is the month of Ramadan, two days before Raya, and as such he will come after Raya?
KM: Tak tahu, saya tak tahu ini semua.
Q43: In fact, I suggest to you, you were aware of it, and sent a 2nd group of officers to arrest him brutally and forcefully.
KM: Tak tahu. I didn’t tell them how to arrest him. I didn’t instruct them. I just told them to arrest RD to come to court, not how to arrest him.
Q44: I put it to you: you have issued this notice to RD without any sufficient material before you?
KM: Tidak benar, Yang Arif.
Q45: You issued the notice on the direction by NH because RD was a friend of DRY.
KM: Tidak benar, Yang Arif, NH tidak mempengaruhi saya.
Dato: Why are you shielding NH? Is it because he is your boss and he can decide on your promotion?
DPP: Kevin is giving evidence under oath.
Q46: I put it to you the notice to DRY was mala fides?
KM: Tidak benar, Yang Arif.
Q47: You never applied your mind to the facts and circumstances before issuing the notice?
KM: Tidak benar, Yang Arif.
Q48: You acted highhandedly, knowing Moo Sai Chin (MSC) was a man of bad character, not credible, and still you issued the notice
KM: Saya tidak bersetuju.
Dato: I have no further questions, Yang Arif.
The Re-examination at 11.10am was uneventful KM just wanted to get of the stands. The other witnesses for the day MACC formal witnesses. The other independent witnesses namely En Adenan Ismail and Ms Leong Kuy Leong destroyed the MACC’s case by showing that KM had lied about many things in his testimony. Realising this, the DPP cut short his questions and released these witnesses.
Judge: Continue tomorrow 5/5/2010 at 2.30 pm.
