‘No comment’ 15 times: Lawyer asks High Court to make ex-1MDB CEO answer

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 26 — The High Court today heard that former 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) chief executive officer (CEO) Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi had repeatedly declined to comment when questioned by lawyers representing the defendants in a US$5.64 billion civil suit.

Senior Counsel GK Ganesan, who represents former 1MDB investment director Kelvin Tan Kay Jin, the seventh defendant in the suit, asked the court to direct the 56-year-old, who is testifying as the fourth plaintiff witness, to answer questions put to him, arguing that he could not repeatedly respond with “no comment” during cross-examination.

Ganesan raised the matter after Shahrol Azral gave a “no comment” response when Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who represents Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, questioned him about the RM5 billion bond issuance by Terengganu Investment Authority Bhd (TIA), which Shahrol Azral had alleged was carried out on Najib’s instructions.

“My Lord, this is probably the 15th time this witness has said ‘no comment’. The witness has been brought to this court to comment. He has said things which are against the interests of the defendants.

“When questions are being asked which are against the interests of the plaintiffs, he says ‘no comment’.

“Under Section 132 of the Evidence Act 1950, My Lord, even if a witness will incriminate himself either in civil liability or criminal liability, he must answer the question. Now, it is entirely open for him to say, ‘I disagree’. That’s fine, My Lord. But he must be compelled to answer the question,” he said.

Ganesan also referred to Section 146 of the Evidence Act 1950, which provides for questions to be put to a witness to test his accuracy, veracity or credibility, or to shake his credit.

“The problem now is, My Lord, we are now stuck as defendants, listening to a witness who has repeatedly said, ‘I have no comment’, and these answers are completely unhelpful in seeking the truth of the matter.

“He also referred to Section 148(2)(c), which allows a court, if it sees fit, to draw from the witness’s refusal to answer the inference that the answer, if given, would be unfavourable.

“May I respectfully ask My Lord to direct the witness to answer the question?” he said before Judicial Commissioner (JC) Mohamad Redzuan Idrus.

The application was supported by Muhammad Shafee, who represents Najib, the first defendant in the suit.

JC Mohamad Redzuan subsequently said the court would make the necessary inference if a witness refused to answer a question after being directed to do so.

The JC also expressed concern that the issue had not been brought to the court’s attention earlier by counsel who had previously cross-examined Shahrol Azral.

“What perplexes the court is that the counsel who was cross-examining the witness earlier did not bring this thing to the court’s attention. Nor did the plaintiff’s counsel assist or instruct its witness to answer,” he said.

1MDB and its subsidiaries — 1MDB Energy Holdings Limited, 1MDB Energy Limited, 1MDB Energy (Langat) Limited and Global Diversified Investment Company Limited, formerly known as 1MDB Global Investments Limited — filed the civil suit on May 7, 2021.

They named Najib, 1MDB’s former finance director Terrence Geh Choh Heng, former executive director Casey Tang Keng Chee, former general counsel Jasmine Loo Ai Swan, Vincent Beng, former chief financial officer Radhi Mohamad, former 1MDB investment director Kelvin Tan Kay Jin, and former chief investment officer Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil, as defendants.

Recently, 1MDB dropped its civil suit against Radhi, with no liberty to refile. The company had previously removed Jasmine from the case as well.

The writ of summons stated that the plaintiffs, among other things, accused the defendants of breach of trust, breach of statutory duty, abuse of power and conspiracy to misappropriate 1MDB funds.

The trial continues tomorrow. — Bernama