We will sue you, Sarawak Report tells Minister Rahman Dahlan


July 22, 2015

We will sue you, Sarawak Report tells Minister Rahman Dahlan

by FMT Reporters

Editor takes particular offence to Abdul Rahman Dahlan labelling her “scum”.

Dr Mahathir and C BrownSarawak Report yesterday vowed legal action against Barisan Nasional’s strategic Communications Director Abdul Rahman Dahlan, New Straits Times and other publications which have deliberately promoted falsehoods designed to damage its credibility.

It also promised to invoke the criminal process against Lester Melanyi for what it claims was a “vicious criminal libel”. “Usually, we rely on the facts to make our case against detractors and allow readers to decide by comparing those facts with the criticisms against us,” it said in a statement posted on its website which is now hosted on a different URL.

“However, over the past days, certain characters who claim to represent the government and their friendly media outlets have gone too far. They have paraded a sick and discredited individual, who has poured out strings of lies, which none of them have sought to check out, in order to claim this as ‘proof’ that our research was all ‘forged’.”

The whistleblower website claimed that it would normally consider Lester’s concocted story to be “entertaining for being so ridiculous” given the mass of evidence which it says supports all that it has written.

Rahman-Dahlan-Clare-Rewcastle-Brown“But ministers have now used this character and these ludicrous libels as an excuse to order an internet ban on Sarawak Report,” it lamented.

Editor Clare Rewcastle Brown took particular offence with Abdul Rahman for “outrageously” libeling her, in particular by calling her “scum” and labeling the portal’s research as “blatant lies”.

“(Abdul Rahman) has not produced a single shred of evidence that would lead anyone to believe the ravings of the mentally unbalanced bankrupt, Lester Melanyi,” she claimed.

“We therefore accuse (him) of criminal libel, motivated by malicious intent. Despite deciding not to sue Lester, Brown warned “him and anyone who continues to promote his present and future made up stories” of future legal action if they persist.

Rosli Dahlan Vs Gani Patail and Cohorts


July 22, 2015

COMMENT: I have  been following and writing about  theDin MericanUC plight of my good friends, Dato Ramli  Yusoff and Lawyer Rosli Dahlan over a number of years. I continue to be critical about the MACC Chief Commissioner, and the Attorney-General  and former Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and the present IGP.

My view is that they all have acted with impunity and must face the consequences of their actions against Dato’ Ramli and Lawyer Rosli. It is now in the hands of the presiding Judge to decide and deliver the verdict based on all evidence before him.  I am convinced that justice will prevail in the end. These public officials deserve whatever is due to them for failing to do their duty with due diligence and high sense of responsibility. The Attorney-General can tell the Martians that “All actions thereon were taken against the plaintiff (Rosli) premised on and in accordance with the law”. –Din Merican

Attorney-General Gani Patail : No Malice in Lawyer Rosli’s prosecution

 by FMT Reporters

Attorney-General Gani Patail claims had ‘reasonable and probable cause’ to pursue criminal action, but observers are unconvinced.

Rosli-DahlanLawyer Rosli Dahlan

Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail and his ten co-defendants have labelled as a “misconception” the facts which senior lawyer Rosli Dahlan set out in his statement of claim which the latter says amounted to abuse of power, malicious prosecution and a conspiracy between Gani, former Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan, current Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner Abu Kassim Mohamed and several other Police and MACC officers.

In a joint statement of defence dated July 10 filed in court by the Attorney-General’s Chambers in response to Rosli’s statement of claim, the defendants had claimed that all facts, inferences and implications pleaded by Rosli in his statement of claim could not amount to any cause of action entitling him to bring the lawsuit against them.

“The onus is on the plaintiff to plead clearly a complete cause of action, not merely hurl accusations without basis,” the defence states. “The plaintiff is put to strict proof of each of his allegations.”

The AG and the rest

Gani and his co-defendants also claim that they had “reasonable and probable cause” to pursue criminal action against Rosli as they believed him to be an associate of Ramli. They added that the two notices to Rosli had been validly issued by the MACC under section 32(1)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 and that the practising lawyer had failed to comply with the said notices.

“MACC has evidence and proof that show that the plaintiff had a good relationship with Ramli and that he had acted for Ramli in several transactions involving property and companies which Ramli is believed to have owned,” the defence states.

“MACC, therefore, has reasonable cause and evidence to believe that Ramli was involved in corrupt activities and was liable to be investigated under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997.

“All actions thereon were taken against the plaintiff (Rosli) premised on and in accordance with the law,” the defence reads further.

Gani also claims in the defence that the pursuit of Rosli’s prosecution and appeals against the decisions of the courts in respect thereof were entirely matters within his discretion in his capacity as public prosecutor of the federation pursuant to Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution and that the discretion was exercised after giving due consideration to public policy and were based on the outcome of investigations which had been conducted.

“All actions were taken in good faith and without malice,” he pleads.

Other points raised by the defendants in their defence include that the current action was duplicitous given that it was largely similar to a parallel case presently on-going before Justice Su Geok Yiam in another High Court.

The defendants also claim that the plaintiff is time-barred from bringing the action by reason of the provisions of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1948. Section 2 of the Act provides that all actions must be commenced within thirty-six months of the accrual of the cause of action.

Observers following both this and the parallel case, however, have expressed surprise and reservations as to the contents of the defence put forward.

They note that a large portion of Rosli’s statement of claim narrates facts and findings which have either already been determined by the criminal courts which heard the prosecution’s case against both Ramli and Rosli or which have already been the subject of much of the testimony already adduced in the parallel case.

In particular, they told FMT that in the criminal case against Rosli, Sessions Court judge Abu Bakar Katar had in his decision delivered on December 20, 2010 found that the prosecution in the case before him had failed to disclose that Rosli was Ramli’s associate. He also said that the notices were issued without basis and that the prosecution had failed to prove that Rosli had intentionally neglected to respond to them.

Apart from that, they say that Utusan Malaysia and the Star have already issued admissions and apologies to Rosli, while the New Straits Times and MACC itself have been found liable to him for defamation and were ordered to pay him RM300,000 in damages, both arising from the publication of matters which are at the heart of the case.

They also suggest that Gani and his co-defendants have put up what is largely a ‘bare denial’ defence, i.e. a defence which merely seeks to put Rosli to strict proof of his averments without offering an alternative version of the events which transpired.

In addition to that, the parallel case has already seen former MACC prosecutor Kevin Anthony Morais admit as untrue allegations that Rosli had acted as Ramli’s lawyer in property transactions.

The defence of limitation raised by the defendants also appears likely to fail as the very same arguments have already been canvassed and were rejected by the Court of Appeal, although an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court on that decision is pending.

Finally and probably most startlingly, the suggestion that the defendants had reasonable and probable cause to pursue Rosli’s criminal prosecution appears to fly in the face of evidence already given in the parallel case, although no decision has been rendered on it as yet.

Under rules of procedure, Rosli is entitled to file a reply to the defence within fourteen days of service. Thereafter, Justice Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera is expected to issue directions at case management which will lead to the matter coming up for trial.

Gani and his fellow defendants had delayed for some eighteen months in the filing of their defence to the case, much to Rosli’s despair and annoyance.

On May 28, High Court Judge Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera instructed Gani and his co-defendants to file their defence within 30 days. It is understood that the deadline was extended upon requests by Cecil Abraham, who acts as lead counsel for Gani and his co-defendants.

Vazeer will preside over the next case management of the case on July 29.

Gani Patail, Abu Kassim and Gang told to file defence by July 6, 2015


June 30, 2015

Gani Patail, Abu Kassim and 9 others given another 7 days to file their defence

Musa-Hassan_abu-kasim_gani_patail_ramli_600

 Lawyer Rosli Dahlan has given Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Tan Sri Abu Kassim and 9 others who are facing a suit for abuse of power and malicious prosecution, another week to file their defence despite they having missed the court’s deadline.

Rosli’s lawyer Parvinder Kaur Cheema, said her client only gave the defendants a week, instead of two weeks as requested by Gani’s lawyer Tan Sri Cecil Abraham. “The defendants must now file their defence by July 6 following the extended deadline as agreed by both parties,” she told The Malaysian Insider.

On May 28, High Court judge Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera instructed Gani and the rest of the defendants to file their defence within 30 days so that trial could proceed.The judge had also fixed the next case management on July 29

Parvinder said the deadline for the defendants would have expired yesterday. She said Abraham had made a verbal request that the plaintiffs gave them more time since he and his team were moving to set up their own legal firm.

The Malaysian Insider understands that the senior lawyer, formerly with Zul Rafique & Partners, would begin operating his own legal firm sometime in mid-July with a group of lawyers.

RD

Rosli and former Commercial Crime Investigation Department chief Datuk Ramli Yusuf filed suits in November 2013 against Gani and the rest for, among others, alleged malicious prosecution over corruption charges.The courts have cleared them of the charges.

In a landmark ruling in April last year, Vazeer Alam dismissed the application to strike out Rosli and Ramli’s suit, saying the matter must go to trial. Vazeer Alam had remarked that the A-G, who holds public office, cannot escape suits when they involve allegations of abuse of power.

“I am afraid that the notion of absolute immunity for a public servant, even when mala fide or abuse of power in the exercise of their prosecutorial power is alleged, is anathema to modern day notions of accountability,” Vazeer Alam had said.

Both Rosli and Ramli are now claiming damages to the tune of about RM176 million. Ramli, in his RM128.5 million suit, had also named former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan and 10 others for wrongfully bringing two charges against him.

Rosli, in his suit, is claiming more than RM47 million for conspiring to arrest and charge him in court over an alleged failure to declare his assets. Rosli named Gani, Musa and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief commissioner Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed in their personal capacities.

The lawyer alleged that Gani had a role in the malicious prosecution.On April 1, a three-member Court of Appeal bench, chaired by Datuk Abdul Hamid Sultan, also dismissed the defendants’ appeal to strike out the suit.

The defendants then filed a leave application in the Federal Court on April 28 to appeal against the Court of Appeal ruling. Subsequently the defendants also filed an application to stay the High Court order which directed them (on May 28) to file their defence. However, proceedings in the apex court last week had been adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Malaysia’s Attorney-General and 10 others run to the Federal Court for cover


June 25, 2015

Malaysia’s Attorney-General  and 10 others run to the Federal Court for cover

by  V. Anbalagan–The Malaysian Insider

ganipatailAttorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail and 10 others who are facing suits for abuse of power and malicious prosecution by a corporate lawyer and a retired police officer, will go to the Federal Court today in an attempt to delay filing their defence.

Court documents sighted by The Malaysian Insider revealed that the 10 defendants want the apex court to stay High Court judge Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera’s order that the case goes to trial soon.

Gani and the other defendants had also filed a leave application at the Federal Court to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal on April 1, which had upheld Vazeer Alam’s ruling. A five-man Federal Court bench is scheduled to hear the stay and leave applications today.

Lawyer Rosli Dahlan and former PDRM’s Commercial Crime Investigation Director Datuk Ramli Yusuf are objecting to the applications as there were no special circumstances to stay Vazeer Alam’s instruction.

rosli-dahlan2Rosli Dahlan

Rosli (above) and Ramli are also contending that it has been 18 months since the A-G’s defence was supposed to have been filed and this latest move is just a delay tactic to frustrate their claim.

Rosli said he would have expected Gani and the rest to file their defence after both the High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed their move to strike out the suits. “The defendants had filed numerous applications to stall the suits from being disposed of expeditiously,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

On May 28, Vazeer Alam ordered Gani and the other defendants to file their defence within 30 days so that trial could proceed. Rosli and Ramli filed suits in November 2013 against Gani and the rest for, among other things, alleged malicious prosecution over corruption charges.

The courts have cleared them of the charges. In a landmark ruling in April last year, Vazeer Alam dismissed the application to strike out Rosli and Ramli’s suit, saying the matter must go to trial.

Vazeer Alam had remarked that the A-G, who holds public office, cannot escape suits when they involve allegations of abuse of power.

ag-not-above-the-law“I am afraid that the notion of absolute immunity for a public servant, even when mala fide or abuse of power in the exercise of their prosecutorial power is alleged, is anathema to modern day notions of accountability,” Vazeer Alam said.

Vazeer Alam in his ruling had also said he agreed that deliberate abuse of power by those holding public office was misfeasance.

“Such a torturous act can arise when an officer actuated by malice, for example, by personal spite or a desire to injure for improper reasons, abuses his power. This is in keeping with developments in modern jurisprudence that absolute immunity for public servants has no place in a progressive democratic society,” he added.

A Greek PhilosopherBoth Rosli and Ramli are now claiming damages to the tune of about RM176 million.Ramli, in his RM128.5 million suit, had also named former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan and 10 others for wrongfully bringing two charges against him.

Rosli, in his suit, is claiming more than RM47 million for conspiring to arrest and charge him in court over an alleged failure to declare his assets. Rosli named Gani, Musa and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed in their personal capacities.

The lawyer alleged that Gani had a role in the malicious prosecution. On April 1, a three-member Court of Appeal bench, chaired by Datuk Abdul Hamid Sultan, also dismissed the defendants’ appeal to strike out the suit.

TS Abu KassimThe defendants then filed a leave application in the Federal Court on April 28 to appeal against the Court of Appeal ruling. Subsequently the defendants also filed an application to stay the High Court order which directed them (on May 28) to file their defence.

This case is also connected with the on-going trial before High Court judge Su Geok Yim where Rosli has filed a conspiracy and defamation suit against MACC and 12 others officials.

Rosli Dahlan Vs MACC: MACC Director contradicts himself


June 11, 2015

Rosli Dahlan Vs MACC: MACC Director contradicts himself

by Hafiz Yatim@www.malaysiakini.com

Abu KassimMACC Chief Commissioner on Trial

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Director of Intelligence, Azam Mohd Baki, gave conflicting testimony at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur today in lawyer Rosli Dahlan’s RM50 million suit against the anti-graft body for unlawful arrest and assault.

His witness statement and oral testimony contradicted with the defence statement, ‎which Azam filed in 2012.

Azam testified today that the arrest of Rosli was was made at the lawyer’s office, for resisting, after they failed to find him at his home.

However, in his defence statement which was filed three years ago Azam said the earlier officers who went to Rosli’s office required assistance.

Asked by lawyer Chetan Jethwani, who is appearing for Rosli (photo),Rosli Dahlan the MACC director admitted the discrepancy between his testimony today and the defence statement.

However, Azam denied that his testimony today was to suit with other testimonies given by earlier witnesses from the MACC or the Anti-Corruption Agency (as it was known then).

Testimony today not consistent

Chetan: I suggest the testimony you have given today that you could not find Rosli at his home is what you just made up.

Azam: This is not true.

Chetan: I suggest that your testimony today is not consistent with the defence statement that you have pleaded before the court.

Azam: I do not agree.

Chetan: If you look at your defence statement you stated that the plaintiff (Rosli) acted aggressively when the first team failed to arrest him in his office and that the first team required assistance. This is inconsistent with the testimony that you have given today.

Azam: Yes, it’s true (not consistent).

Incidentally, at today’s hearing, reporters from the mainstream media were ordered to cover the trial by their top bosses following Azam’s testimony. It should be noted that the mainstream papers have not covered this trial from the time it started.

‘I ordered arrest’

The witness also denied Chetan’s suggestion that the arrest was performed two days before Hari Raya in 2007 to injure his cleint’s reputation and prevent him from acting for former Commercial Crime Investigation Department director Ramli Yusof, whose team had arrested alleged underworld figure Goh Cheng Poh.

To this, Azam said he was not involved in investigations against Ramli or Goh.

Previously, Ramli had testified, as the plaintiff’s witness, that he was forced by the Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail, to handover confidential files of informants which led to Goh’s arrests.

The names of the informants were handed to Anti-Corruption Agency (the predecessor of the MACC) which resulted in Goh’s release.

Earlier today, when questioned by MACC’s lawyer Rishvant Singh, Azam, 52, said he had ordered Rosli’s arrest under Section 32 (2) of the Anti Corruption Act 1997 on the request of the AG’s Chambers.

Rosli was accused of failing to abide to the ACA’s notice to provide details of his assets. “I instructed an ACA superintendent to arrest the Rosli. However, the ACA officer claimed the lawyer resisted arrest.

“Following this, I asked three other officers to go and arrest him. I issued the directive between 1.45pm to 2pm. I led a team to arrest Rosli. When I went to the lawyer’s office I saw Rosli was uncontrollable and aggressive towards some of the ACA officers.

“The lawyer also shouted profanities at us. I asked Rosli to remain calm but he refused and following this, I ordered an officer to handcuff him,” said Azam.

Conferred Datuk-ship

Azam acknowledged that Rosli did complain about the handcuffs being too tight but he did not check or document this claim.

Court documents state that Rosli had claimed he was assaulted during his arrest and that the tight application of the handcuffs resulted in wrist injuries.

To a question from Justice Su Geok Yiam, Azam said he was conferred the “Datuk” title in 2011 from the Sultan of Pahang for his participation in the Football Association of Malaysia’s integrity committee.

In 2007, Ramli was implicated by the ACA for allegedly having a networth of RM27 million. He claimed that this was part of a conspiracy to taint his name for arresting Goh.

Ramli was later charged for hiding some of his assets, a month after Rosli was charged. The duo was acquitted without their defence being called.

The trial resumes on October 12, 2015

 

Rosli Dahlan Vs MACC: MACC Witnesses contradict each other


June 10, 2015

COMMENT: I have been following and writing about the cases of Dato Ramli and his brilliant and Din Merican Newgutsy lawyer Rosli Dahlan over several years. What emerges from their battles with the MACC and the Attorney-General via our courts confirms that the culture of impunity is deeply entrenched in our system of governance.

Both these organizations feel that they can use their power without accountability to punish citizens at will. Most Malaysians suffer in silence but not Rosli Dahlan and his client, Dato Ramli Yusuff.They went to our courts and won but only at a huge cost in terms of time attending court sessions, emotional pain and stress, and  money.

I once asked Lawyer Rosli why he had to go after both MACC Chief Abu Kassim and Attorney-General Gani Patail now. He told me that he was delighted to have been cleared by the courts of those charges. He said that he wanted to redeem his professional reputation and personal integrity since both Abu Kassim and Gani Patail were responsible for dragging him needlessly to court in the first place. Then I said, mala fide? But Rosli did not respond. I suppose that is for the courts to decide.

The MACC Chief Commissioner and the Attorney-General do not  respect our courts. Their staff too are arrogant  and having sworn to tell  “the truth nothing but the whole truth”  they had the audacity to lie and contradict each other before the esteemed judge during testimony yesterday.

Even the findings of the Royal Commissions like those concerning the death of Teoh Beng Hock, the V K Lingam Correct, Correct video tape and Project IC (Sabah) can be put aside. They believe that nothing can happen to them. They think that they will not be punished for serving their political masters to silence dissent and  put the fear of God in citizens who are defending their fundamental rights and seeking justice from our courts. They have shown that they are prepared to drag cases through various levels of our justice system since  they have taxpayers’ money to underwrite their legal costs whereas victims of their irresponsible actions have to use their hard earned savings, or mortgage or sell their houses to defray court and legal expenses.

Their purpose is clear and that is they do not care if they lose their cases. They want put ordinary law abiding citizens through public humiliation and emotional hell so that we all can be cowed. We are fortunate have people like Rosli Dahlan and Dato’Ramli Yusuff who have the courage and stamina to defend their dignity and personal integrity, and seek justice.–Din Merican

Rosli Dahlan Vs MACC: MACC Witnesses contradict each other

FMT Reporters

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com

Rosli_dahlan

The third day of the defence case in the court battle between lawyer Rosli Dahlan and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) continued today with defence witnesses making substantial concessions and appearing to contradict each other under cross-examination.

Taking the witness stand first, investigating officer Azmi Ismail began by denying knowledge of the case by answering “I don’t know” to a series of questions posed to him by Rosli’s counsel, Chetan Jethwani and Parvinder Kaur.

Chetan then pointed out to him that he was in fact the officer who effected service of the notice on Rosli and also the one who lodged a report against ex-Commercial Crimes Investigation Department chief Ramli Yusuff.

At this, his answers appeared to change to “I cannot remember” at one point, incurring a rebuke from presiding Judge Su Geok Yiam when he claimed not to know the circumstances surrounding the service of notice on Rosli.

Intense cross-examination of witnesses

The intense cross-examination which followed, however, appeared to yield several concessions and contradictions.

Azmi eventually admitted being aware that the cases between Rosli and Ramli were inter-connected and that Rosli was in actual fact merely a witness and not a suspect in the case.

He also admitted to being the officer who investigated allegations of corruption made against Ramli in 2007 although that had been “only for a while.”

When Chetan pressed him as to what he meant, Azmi replied, “I had recorded statements from three witnesses.”

“What did they say,” Chetan asked.

“They admitted they did not know Ramli and they never gave him bribes,” Azmi told the Court.

“Did you state these in your investigation papers,” Chetan asked further.

“Yes,” Azmi replied.

“Thereafter, I was asked to hand over my investigation papers to Saiful and I was taken off the case,” he said.

“I did not get involved anymore and don’t know what happened,” he added. “So, I don’t know much about the notice case.”

When asked where the witnesses were from, Azmi replied, “Perak,” adding, however, that he could not remember their names.

(In proceedings earlier this week, former MACC prosecutor Kevin Anthony Morais had alleged that notices had been issued to Ramli because there was information that Ramli had received bribes. Similarly, investigating officer Saiful Ezral Arifin had testified that MACC were in possession of witness statements containing allegations of bribery involving Ramli.)

Azmi went on to admit that during his time as the investigating officer in Ramli’s case he had never met, let alone interviewed, Moo Sai Chin.

He also testified that Moo had become untraceable after having implicated Ramli.

Azmi also told the court that investigating officers for the case had been specially selected, and that he had been instructed by his superiors to stand down, contradicting Saiful’s earlier testimony that the choice was random.

He also conceded that Rosli had been friendly and cooperative with him, even to the extent of sharing a meal when he attended to serve the notice on Rosli.

Azmi also told the court that an investigating officer will know when a suspect or witness in his case was arrested, contradicting Saiful’s testimony yesterday that he had no knowledge of Rosli’s arrest because he had been on leave.

Admitting that in the usual course a suspect would be released on bail after all formalities had been completed, Azmi told the court that the decision to charge Rosli, and the timing of his arrest, had been made by his superiors.

Rosli’s arrest as an “operation”

The next witness to take the stand for MACC was Augustine Manson who surprised observers by describing Rosli’s arrest as an “operation”.

Augustine, however, floundered several times when asked to identify which officer instructed the arrest, even contradicting his own witness statement.

Asked whether the answer in his witness statement was wrong, Augustine replied, “I don’t know. Can I explain? I was just instructed to participate in the ‘operation’.”

“Oh, so Rosli’s arrest was an ‘operation’, Chetan asked.

“Yes”, Augustine replied.

Augustine then sought to refer to an investigation diary which he claimed to have kept, detailing the arrest and the need to subdue him on account of his violent reaction.

“Do you agree you never mentioned about this diary in your witness statement or anywhere before,” Chetan asked.

“Yes, but I have it and can show it,” Augustine replied, forcing Chetan to apply to inspect the diary over the lunch break.

The afternoon’s proceedings then took an interesting turn with Chetan attempting to show that the diary had not been made contemporaneously with the event of the arrest.

Chetan: This morning you stated that from MACC HQ you went straight to Rosli’s office where Rosli was violent. Are you sure?

Augustine: Yes

Chetan: Now look at the entry in your ID which states that you left MACC HQ and went to Tropicana, and not to his office.

Augustine: Yes.

Chetan: This is different from your testimony this morning.

Augustine: Yes.

Chetan: So, which is true?

Augustine: This morning I was wrong.

When Chetan pointed out that the visit to Tropicana was not stated in Augustine’s witness statement, Augustine replied, “Yes, witness statement and this morning not correct.”

Chetan: Do you know how far these places are from each other?

Augustine: Sorry, I am from Sarawak and only 1 year in KL, I don’t know these places well!

Chetan then sought to establish various other contradictions in the diary, including Augustine’s claim that the house which he went to was occupied by a Chinese family, pointing out that Rosli’s identity card bore its address.

“I can’t blame you for not knowing where you went, since you had just come from Sarawak then and because you said that you just followed Moses.”

The court then burst into laughter when someone in the gallery was heard saying, “Hopefully, he didn’t follow Moses across the Red Sea!”

Augustine brought more laughter upon himself when he sought to explain the proper way to make an arrest and to apply handcuffs, only to later admit that he has never administered handcuffs on suspects himself.

After a brief re-examination by MACC’s counsel Rishwant Singh, proceedings for the day ended with Justice Su noting that both sides appeared battle weary.

Their battle resumes tomorrow.