DAY 7 – 8 APRIL 2003 (part 1) (UPDATED with BM Translation)
On 2 August 1998, Manjeet was called by Gani and Azhar where he (Manjeet) was asked to get his client, Dato Nalla, to fabricate evidence against Anwar. If Dato Nalla was to say that he had arranged several women for Anwar, the charge of being in possession of ammunition would be reduced to that of a lesser charge. If not, Dato Nalla would face the death sentence.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
The AG and the Prosecutor did not blackmail Dato Nalla; they just plea bargained
What everyone had been waiting for finally arrived. Yusof Zainal Abidin denied the allegation by a prominent lawyer and one-time Bar Council Chairman, Manjeet Singh Dhillon, that the Attorney-General, Abdul Gani Patail, and Azhar Mohamad, had blackmailed his (Manjeet’s) client, Dato Nalla Karuppan, with threats of the death sentence unless he agreed to fabricate evidence against Anwar Ibrahim.
It was not blackmail but plea bargaining, explained Yusof to a most amused courtroom.
On 2 August 1998, Manjeet was called by Gani and Azhar where he (Manjeet) was asked to get his client, Dato Nalla, to fabricate evidence against Anwar. If Dato Nalla was to say that he had arranged several women for Anwar, the charge of being in possession of ammunition would be reduced to that of a lesser charge. If not, Dato Nalla would face the death sentence.
On 12 August 1998, Manjeet signed a Statutory Declaration which he sent to the then AG, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, relating the entire incident. He also wrote a letter detailing what happened.
“The meeting of 2 August 1998 is all about plea bargaining,” said Yusof.
“Manjeet wanted the charge against his client to be reduced to one under the Arms Act 1960 and it would appear that Dato Gani would only agree if Nalla was prepared to cooperate to give information concerning several women.”
“It is something which is permissible under the law.”
“It would be very wrong to allege that it amounted to a threat to maintain a lawful charge if Nalla was not prepared to cooperate.”
Yusof then asked the court, if what the AG had tried to do was so wrong, why did Manjeet agree to talk to Dato Nalla about it instead of protesting?
“Yet, when Dato Gani allegedly told him that he wanted the fabricated evidence from Nalla, there was not a trace of anger or disappointment which he demonstrated through his Statutory Declaration or letter?”
“He meekly said, ‘If that is your request, I will convey it to my client’,” said Yusof.
Yusof added that the Defence never adduced as evidence the tape recording of the conversation alleging that Gani and Azhar had blackmailed Dato Nalla to fabricate evidence against Anwar. In short, the defence had their chance to prove this serious allegation but it goofed.
Fernando, now infuriated, stood up to say that the Defence had told the court about the existence of the tape and they had actually brought the tape to court and offered to play it for them but the Prosecution did not want to hear it.
The Bench then interjected to ask whether this ‘offer’ was on record to which the Prosecution replied it was not.
“That’s the end of the story then,” retorted Richard Malanjun.
Fernando was not about to let the judge get away with this and he replied, “That’s not the end of the story.”
Fernando then informed the court that the exchange did take place but the judge did not record it.
And this is yet another incident of proceedings in the trial missing from the records.
Translated into BM by Jason:
HARI 7 – 8 APRIL 2003 (bahagian 1)
Pada 2 Ogos 1998, Manjeet dipanggil oleh Gani dan Azhar, yang mana beliau (Manjeet) diminta untuk mendapatkan persetujuan anak guamnya, Dato’ Nalla bagi memalsukan bukti terhadap Anwar. Jika Dato’ Nalla mengatakan bahawa dia telah mendapatkan beberapa orang wanita untuk Anwar, maka pertuduhan atas pemilikan peluru akan diringankan. Jika tidak, Dato’ Nalla akan menghadapi hukuman mati.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Peguam Negara dan Pendakwa tidak mengugut Dato’ Nalla; mereka hanya merundingkan akuan.
Saat yang dinantikan semua orang akhirnya tiba. Yusof Zainal Abidin menafikan dakwaan oleh peguam terkemuka dan mantan Pengerusi Majlis Peguam, Manjeet Singh Dhillon, bahawa Peguam Negara, Abdul Gani Patail, dan Azhar Mohamad mengugut anak guamnya, Dato’ Nalla Karuppan dengan ancaman hukuman mati, melainkan dia bersetuju memalsukan bukti terhadap Anwar Ibrahim.
Itu bukan ugutan, tetapi adalah rundingan akuan, jelas Yusof kepada hadirin yang kelihatan kaget.
Pada 2 Ogos 1998, Manjeet dipanggil oleh Gani dan Azhar, yang mana beliau (Manjeet) diminta untuk mendapatkan persetujuan anak guamnya, Dato’ Nalla bagi memalsukan bukti terhadap Anwar. Jika Dato’ Nalla mengatakan bahawa dia telah mendapatkan beberapa orang wanita untuk Anwar, maka pertuduhan atas pemilikan peluru akan diringankan. Jika tidak, Dato’ Nalla akan menghadapi hukuman mati.
Pada 12 Ogos 1998, Manjeet menandatangani Akuan Bersumpah mengenai insiden itu, yang kemudiannya dihantar kepada Peguam Negara pada masa itu, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah. Beliau juga memperincikan insiden itu dalam sepucuk surat.
“Pertemuan pada 2 Ogos 1998 hanya membabitkan rundingan akuan,” kata Yusof.
“Manjeet mahu pertuduhan terhadap anak guamnya dikurangkan kepada satu di bawah Akta Senjata 1960, dan Dato’ Gani seakan hanya akan bersetuju (dengan pengurangan itu) jika Nalla sanggup bekerjasama untuk memberikan maklumat mengenai beberapa orang wanita.”
“Ini dibenarkan di bawah undang-undang.”
“Adalah menjadi kesilapan yang besar bagi menuduh bahawa ia adalah ugutan untuk mengekalkan pertuduhan yang sah jika Nalla tidak mahu bekerjasama.”
Yusof kemudiannya bertanya kepada mahkamah, jika apa yang Peguam Negara lakukan itu adalah salah, maka mengapakah Manjeet tidak membantah, malah bersetuju untuk membincangkan perkara itu dengan Dato’ Nalla?
“Tetapi ketika Dato’ Gani dikatakan memberitahunya bahawa beliau inginkan bukti-bukti palsu daripada Nalla, kenapakah tiada sebarang tanda kemarahan ataupun kekecewaan, sebagaimana yang diluahkannya dalam Akuan Bersumpah ataupun suratnya?”
“Dia dengan lemah berkata, ‘Jika itulah permintaan awak, maka saya akan menyampaikannya kepada anak guam saya’,” kata Yusof.
Yusof menambah bahawa Pembelaan tidak pernah mengemukakan pita rakaman perbualan yang mendakwa bahawa Gani dan Azhar mengugut Dato’ Nalla agar memalsukan bukti terhadap Anwar sebagai bahan bukti. Ringkasnya, Pembelaan telah mendapat peluang bagi membuktikan dakwaan yang serius ini, namun gagal berbuat demikian.
Fernando yang kini berang berdiri dan berkata bahawa Pembelaan telah memberitahu mahkamah tentang kewujudan pita itu, malah mereka membawa pita itu ke mahkamah dan menawarkan untuk memperdengarkannya. Tetapi Pendakwa enggan mendengarnya.
Panel hakim kemudiannya mencelah dan bertanya sama ada ‘tawaran’ itu direkodkan ataupun tidak, yang mana Pendakwa menjawab bahawa ia tidak direkodkan.
“Kalau begitu, isu ini berakhir di sini sahaja,” balas Richard Malanjun.
Fernando menjawab, “Tidak, itu tidak bermakna isu ini sudah berakhir.”
Selepas itu, Fernando memberitahu mahkamah bahawa perkara itu memang dibangkitkan dalam mahkamah, tetapi hakim perbicaraan tidak merekodkannya.
Ini adalah satu lagi insiden yang mana prosiding dalam perbicaraan tidak direkodkan.
