The Hadi-Clare case: it was suka sama suka, not rogol

Yes, it makes sense for Tong to pay Justo RM8.2 million and settle their case out of court, just like Mahathir wanted Clare to settle her case out of court and to stop attacking Abdul Taib Mahmud, logging in Sarawak, and the palm oil industry.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

This is what was reported on 15th May 2010:

The sodomy trial of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim heard yesterday that the charge framed against him contradicted witness statements and court evidence given by his complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

His lead counsel Karpal Singh argued that the charge under Section 377B of the Penal Code was for committing the sexual act with consent, while Mohd Saiful’s evidence in court and his witness statements implied an alleged offence under Section 377C for a sexual act without consent.

Karpal applied for Mohd Saiful’s witness statements recorded during the investigation of the sodomy case to be supplied to the defence for the purpose of cross-examination. He submitted that the defence has the right to have the statements to study the possibility of impeaching Mohd Saiful.

“Mohd Saiful stated in his police report that the incident took place without his consent. He confirmed this when he testified in court on Monday and he alleged the same thing today (Tuesday). 

“This is not an ordinary case. The attention of the court is being directed to the contradiction and the court has to determine the discrepancies and decide over this.”

“This ruling by Your Lordship will be a prime order, which will be subject for appeal at the Court of Appeal. If we can prove that the witness lied in court then we can impeach him,” he said.

Karpal said Anwar’s and Saiful’s sex act was mutual or consensual, just like in the case of Hadi and Clare

In other words, what Karpal argued is that Anwar was charged for having ‘unilateral’ or non-consensual sex with Saiful whereas Saiful was a willing party to the sex act: which means it was ‘bilateral’ or consensual.

The Malays would call this suka sama suka.

This is the same with the Abdul Hadi Awang versus Clare Rewcastle Brown case. It was not Hadi who withdrew from the case. It was both Hadi and Clare mutually agreeing to withdraw.

Okay, while many questions are being asked as to why Hadi withdrew, no one is asking why Clare also withdrew.

We must remember, while Hadi claimed defamation, Clare claimed harassment. She even made a police report regarding the matter. So, if Hadi lied about the defamation claim, did Clare lie about the harassment claim and did she make a false police report?

Hadi did not unilaterally withdraw, Hadi and Clare both mutually agreed to withdraw

And there is no order for costs, which means both sides pay their own costs, and Clare claimed she has spent about RM2 million or so thus far. Why would Clare allow Hadi to get away without reimbursing her for the RM2 million she has wasted if her allegation is true and Hadi lied?

Clare should only mutually agree to withdraw her case if Hadi reimburses her for the RM2 million she wasted. After all, it was Hadi who started this whole thing, not her. So Hadi should reimburse her for the RM2 million she wasted for nothing.

All the chatter over the last few days is about Hadi withdrawing. But then it is Clare who also withdrew. However, no one is talking about that. And while they want to know why Hadi withdrew, they do not seem to realise that Clare also withdrew and she has not explained why.

Why did Clare agree to pay her own RM2 million cost and not claim a reimbursement from Hadi?

Yes, why did Clare withdraw, or at least why did she not demand Hadi reimburse her for the RM2 million she wasted fighting this case?

This is why I always say we need to look at the tapestry and not just at the brush strokes or else we will never see the big picture.

Okay, let us go with the argument that Hadi withdrew because Clare’s allegation is true. And let us also go with the argument that Clare would have been able to prove this in court if the case had gone on — because she has all the evidence.

That means, in short, if Hadi had not withdrawn then his goose would be cooked once the hearing starts.

Clare claims Ambiga told her about the RM90 million story

Alright, hold that thought for a moment while I walk you through this case and teach you the basics of the law.

Whatever so-called evidence Clare claims she has is all hearsay. This is what she claims. This is not what she has proven. Even the documents she keeps publishing in Sarawak Report are all hearsay.

For the court to accept all this hearsay evidence as tangible, Clare will need to summon the maker to court. The maker will need to testify that the documents Clare has shown the court are authentic and not fake.

Let us take one example. Clare has published bank documents showing money being banked in or transferred, which she claims she got from ‘whistle-blowers’. That particular whistle-blower will need to go to court and confirm that the documents are authentic and that he or she did give them to Clare.

The problem is, no one would want to go to court to testify that the documents are authentic and that he or she did, in fact, secretly give them to Clare. First of all, under the law (Whistle-Blowers Protection Act 2010), this will not be considered an act or whistle-blowing, so they are not protected, and, secondly, they will be confessing to breaking bank secrecy laws and can be charged for that.

Najib will be Hadi’s main witness who will testify in London that he did not give PAS RM90 million

This will be like a thief testifying that he or she discovered the evidence during a robbery he or she committed.

So, all those so-called ‘documentary evidence’ will remain hearsay and will not be admissible in court — which is the problem Clare is facing (which is why she was as keen to withdraw her claim since she will have a hard time proving her allegation without any evidence).

Her best ‘evidence’ is Ambiga Sreenevasan, who Clare claims told her about former Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak giving PAS RM90 million.

Well, that is what Clare says. Ambiga said nothing. Ambiga will still have to go to court and tell the judge that she told Clare about the RM90 million and that the story is true because…

Yes, because…

Because why?

“How do you know the story is true?” Hadi’s lawyer is going to ask Ambiga.

“Were you there as a witness when the RM90 million was handed over?”

“Was the RM90 million handed over in cash or cheques?”

“Were Hadi and Najib alone or were there other people present?”

“Who were these other people?”

“Will these witnesses be testifying in court?”

Why does Mahathir not want Najib to fly to London to testify in the Hadi-Clare case?

Hadi will then summon Najib to court and Najib will have to confirm or deny the RM90 million story. Hadi has every right to defend himself and this includes summoning Najib to court since he is supposed to be a partner-in-crime to this RM90 million ‘bribe’. If Clare can summon Ambiga to testify that the RM90 million transaction did happen, then Hadi can summon Najib to testify that the RM90 million transaction did not happen.

How is that going to happen unless the Malaysian government gives Najib back his passport and lifts the travel ban on him?

And that was why Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad demanded that Clare settle this matter out of court.

Clare at first refused. In fact, she was very angry because this is a person with an inflated ego and a superiority complex.

If you know the history of Sarawak Report you will know why it is called Sarawak Report. It is called Sarawak Report because it was set up to attack Abdul Taib Mahmud, logging in Sarawak, and the oil palm industry.

The purpose of setting up Sarawak Report was to attack Abdul Taib Mahmud, logging in Sarawak, and the oil palm industry

Mahathir has asked Clare to stop attacking Abdul Taib Mahmud, logging in Sarawak, and the oil palm industry. Because of Sarawak Report, many countries are now banning palm oil and it is hurting Malaysia. Malaysia’s last hope is China. However, according to the Chinese newspapers in the UK, China is very angry with Malaysia and, because of that, Malaysia’s economy is going to suffer (this is what my Chinese neighbour who reads these Chinese newspapers tell me).

Yes, Clare has been told to back off from Abdul Taib Mahmud, logging in Sarawak, and the oil palm industry. Hence, she only has 1MDB on her plate. And that is why she keeps repeating, again and again, all her old stories on 1MDB (mainly because there are no new stories on 1MDB).

Even Xavier Andre Justo was paid off RM8.2 million to make him drop his civil suit against Tong Kooi Ong and The Edge. This case was going to be heard in a Singapore court and Mahathir is worried a lot of what should remain unknown might become known if the case proceeds.

Justo was paid RM8.2 million to also settle his case with Tong out of court

But why pay Justo RM8.2 million to prevent certain secrets from coming out in court? And what secrets are these that they want to remain secrets? Did not Tong say they never agreed to pay Justo RM8.2 million for the stolen data? So why now pay? And did not Justo allege that the data had been altered or doctored, but not by him? If so, then by whom?

Yes, it makes sense for Tong to pay Justo RM8.2 million and settle their case out of court, just like Mahathir wanted Clare to settle her case out of court and to stop attacking Abdul Taib Mahmud, logging in Sarawak, and the oil palm industry.