IPOH, Nov 18 – There was a furore at the graft trial of two former Perak PKR assemblymen when one of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) video evidence on the exchange of bribe money, showed better clarity in sound and visuals today than previously shown.
The team of defence lawyers, Surjan Singh, S. Muthu, Mohd Asri Othman and Abdul Roni Rahman, who are representing the five accused in the case, raised hell in court over the sudden improvement in the clarity of the video during the re-examination process, accusing the MACC of switching videos.
At the time, Surjan Singh had just completed his cross-examination of the prosecution’s sixth witness, agent provocateur Mohamad Imran Abdullah, and MACC prosecution unit head Datuk Abdul Razak Musa had just embarked on his re-examination of the witness.
During the process, Abdul Razak had asked to replay the video recording of the incident on Aug 14, 2008, which showed the handing over of RM5,000 by Mohamad Imran in his meeting with two of the accused, former PKR state executive councillor Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and PKR politician Usaili Alias and a former accused, the late ex-Perak Development Corporation technician Ruslan Sahat.
Upon playing the video however, the defence team noted the “change” in the video’s clarity and wasted no time to lay down their objections to the court.
Muthu fired the first salvo and pointed out loudly to the court that the videos were very much clearer than the one used during the cross-examination.
In his defence, Abdul Razak argued that the only difference in the videos today was that the MACC had decided to bring in better speakers to magnify the sound and allow the court to listen to the conversations in the incident.
Angered by this, Surjan Singh stood up and said to the court, “I am making a statement here to this honourable court. This video was not the same tape played for us to view and to cross-examine on. This was hidden from us. The MACC is very good at this.”
He also questioned Abdul Razak’s explanation on the speakers and asked why the MACC had failed to provide the same equipment during the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination.
Abdul Razak denied that the videos were not different from the ones played before.
“We confirm that they are all the original videos. I even took them from the same envelope as before,” he explained, gesturing to a white envelope in front of him.
He however admitted that the speakers used before this were not as clear as the ones used in court today.
Surjan Singh further argued that the defence team had been denied the opportunity to cross-examine on the conversations that could now be heard with the “better speakers”.
“We merely crossed on the conversations we heard during the examination-in-chief and that was why we had no chance to cross on these other information.
“Your Honour, please be fair to us. No doubt we can and will recall this witness (Mohamad Imran) later but the effect of this evidence now will affect us. The court must consider this,” he said.
Judge Azhaniz Teh Azman Teh at first ordered for the trial to resume, despite agreeing with the lawyers that the conversations in the recording were now clearer.
Shortly after Abdul Razak continued his re-examination however, he cut in to agree with the defence team that much of the evidences raised by the prosecutor today based on the conversations in the video, were never raised during the examination-in-chief before.
“This is true that it is the first time I am hearing all of this. It was not raised before during the examination-in-chief even,” he said to Abdul Razak.
Abdul Razak replied that he agreed that with the new speakers, “the sound quality is better and more words can be heard.”
Surjan Singh then stood up to present his arguments with three main points – that the current evidence raised during re-examination was never raised earlier, that the defence team had been denied the right to cross-examine this “fresh evidence” and that the court was now presented with two sets of evidence.
“One evidence is of a duller recording in terms of visual and sound and another evidence is based on this better version, which is now being used simply to the benefit of my learned friend (Abdul Razak) during his re-examination,” he said.
Abdul Razak objected at this, saying that he had earlier already informed the defence team that the conversations in the recording could be heard if earphones were used.
“I am not suppressing evidence here and if the court wants, I can bring in the old speakers to make a sound comparison,” he said.
Judge Azhaniz Teh however dismissed this and agreed with the defence team, saying, “You (Abdul Razak) have to admit that during the examination-in-chief, all this was not heard. To me, it may be the same recording but it is true that the sound now is so much better with these speakers.”
He then told the defence team that if they so required, they could recall the witness for cross-examination.
Mohd Asri however objected and said that if the MACC had been aware of the quality of video, transcripts should have been provided to save time and effort.
“Now, we have to keep playing a guessing game to determine what was said. It is an unfair advantage that the prosecution has over us,” he said.
Judge Azhaniz Teh then ordered for the court to stand down for a few minutes to discuss the matter with the lawyers in his chambers.
After the discussion, Muthu told reporters that the defence team had decided that they would submit on the discrepancy instead of calling for another round of cross-examination.
MI
18/11/09
The team of defence lawyers, Surjan Singh, S. Muthu, Mohd Asri Othman and Abdul Roni Rahman, who are representing the five accused in the case, raised hell in court over the sudden improvement in the clarity of the video during the re-examination process, accusing the MACC of switching videos.
At the time, Surjan Singh had just completed his cross-examination of the prosecution’s sixth witness, agent provocateur Mohamad Imran Abdullah, and MACC prosecution unit head Datuk Abdul Razak Musa had just embarked on his re-examination of the witness.
During the process, Abdul Razak had asked to replay the video recording of the incident on Aug 14, 2008, which showed the handing over of RM5,000 by Mohamad Imran in his meeting with two of the accused, former PKR state executive councillor Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and PKR politician Usaili Alias and a former accused, the late ex-Perak Development Corporation technician Ruslan Sahat.
Upon playing the video however, the defence team noted the “change” in the video’s clarity and wasted no time to lay down their objections to the court.
Muthu fired the first salvo and pointed out loudly to the court that the videos were very much clearer than the one used during the cross-examination.
In his defence, Abdul Razak argued that the only difference in the videos today was that the MACC had decided to bring in better speakers to magnify the sound and allow the court to listen to the conversations in the incident.
Angered by this, Surjan Singh stood up and said to the court, “I am making a statement here to this honourable court. This video was not the same tape played for us to view and to cross-examine on. This was hidden from us. The MACC is very good at this.”
He also questioned Abdul Razak’s explanation on the speakers and asked why the MACC had failed to provide the same equipment during the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination.
Abdul Razak denied that the videos were not different from the ones played before.
“We confirm that they are all the original videos. I even took them from the same envelope as before,” he explained, gesturing to a white envelope in front of him.
He however admitted that the speakers used before this were not as clear as the ones used in court today.
Surjan Singh further argued that the defence team had been denied the opportunity to cross-examine on the conversations that could now be heard with the “better speakers”.
“We merely crossed on the conversations we heard during the examination-in-chief and that was why we had no chance to cross on these other information.
“Your Honour, please be fair to us. No doubt we can and will recall this witness (Mohamad Imran) later but the effect of this evidence now will affect us. The court must consider this,” he said.
Judge Azhaniz Teh Azman Teh at first ordered for the trial to resume, despite agreeing with the lawyers that the conversations in the recording were now clearer.
Shortly after Abdul Razak continued his re-examination however, he cut in to agree with the defence team that much of the evidences raised by the prosecutor today based on the conversations in the video, were never raised during the examination-in-chief before.
“This is true that it is the first time I am hearing all of this. It was not raised before during the examination-in-chief even,” he said to Abdul Razak.
Abdul Razak replied that he agreed that with the new speakers, “the sound quality is better and more words can be heard.”
Surjan Singh then stood up to present his arguments with three main points – that the current evidence raised during re-examination was never raised earlier, that the defence team had been denied the right to cross-examine this “fresh evidence” and that the court was now presented with two sets of evidence.
“One evidence is of a duller recording in terms of visual and sound and another evidence is based on this better version, which is now being used simply to the benefit of my learned friend (Abdul Razak) during his re-examination,” he said.
Abdul Razak objected at this, saying that he had earlier already informed the defence team that the conversations in the recording could be heard if earphones were used.
“I am not suppressing evidence here and if the court wants, I can bring in the old speakers to make a sound comparison,” he said.
Judge Azhaniz Teh however dismissed this and agreed with the defence team, saying, “You (Abdul Razak) have to admit that during the examination-in-chief, all this was not heard. To me, it may be the same recording but it is true that the sound now is so much better with these speakers.”
He then told the defence team that if they so required, they could recall the witness for cross-examination.
Mohd Asri however objected and said that if the MACC had been aware of the quality of video, transcripts should have been provided to save time and effort.
“Now, we have to keep playing a guessing game to determine what was said. It is an unfair advantage that the prosecution has over us,” he said.
Judge Azhaniz Teh then ordered for the court to stand down for a few minutes to discuss the matter with the lawyers in his chambers.
After the discussion, Muthu told reporters that the defence team had decided that they would submit on the discrepancy instead of calling for another round of cross-examination.
MI
18/11/09
No comments:
Post a Comment