Rosmah argues ex-aide Rizal Mansor is the corrupt one, not her
(MMO) – In the opening stages of her defence to corruption charges related to the RM1.25 billion project for the supply of electricity to 369 rural schools in Sarawak, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor testified at the High Court that she should instead testify against former aide (pic) Datuk Rizal Mansor’s alleged corrupt acts.
Taking the witness stand in her own defence, Rosmah vehemently denied all charges laid against her.
She stated that it was allegedly Rizal’s own volition to solicit bribes from Jepak Holdings Sdn Bhd to secure the project, but yet had placed the blame on her and had subsequently slandered her public image in the process with his inaccurate testimony in court as a prosecution witness.
Rosmah further stated that Rizal had even admitted to soliciting bribes of RM25 million from Jepak Holdings managing director Saidi Abang Samsudin and the latter’s business partner Rayyan Radzwill Abdullah.
“Yang Arif, it is I who should be a prosecution witness towards PW21 (Rizal) and not the other way around. PW21 has openly admitted to wrongdoings towards all his charges in his sworn testimony in court during this trial.
“PW21 also admitted to soliciting RM25 million from PW17 (Saidi), which was RM5 million a year, for five years.
“PW21 also admitted to receiving RM500,000 from PW17, admitted to receiving bribes worth RM30,000 from PW16 (Rayyan) to be paid to Datuk Ahmed Farriq Zainul Abidin (PW9), admitted to receiving bribes six to seven times from PW17, at least RM500,000 every time, and admitted to receiving bribes from PW17 from PW16 for his Umrah trip with his family.
“I however have never solicited or received any bribes from PW17 or PW16, either directly or through PW21 and I have never done or admitted to doing so,” she said.
Rosmah further stated that RIzal’s testimony was done allegedly to smear her good name and credibility as the wife of a former prime minister, through an “inter alia deal” with the prosecution to withdraw the charges laid against him and subsequently act as a “crown witness” for the prosecution in the proceedings.
