Rosli’s arrest as “distressing to witness” and “very disturbing”, says Witness

May 18, 2015

Phnom Penh

Rosli’s arrest as “distressing to witness” and “very disturbing”, says Witness

by Ho Kit

Rosli DThe much anticipated battle between senior lawyers Cecil Abraham, acting for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), and Lambert Rasa-Ratnam, fizzled out meekly earlier today, with Abraham seeming to restrict himself from asking too many questions of Lambert and the two other partners who took the witness stand today. Abraham also later absented himself from proceedings in the afternoon.

Lambert was testifying in a case which Rosli had commenced against the MACC, several of its officers and the Government of Malaysia. The suit involved claims by Rosli for assault and false imprisonment against MACC (formerly known as the Anti-Corruption Agency, or ACA) and the Government of Malaysia.

In his Witness Statement which was tendered in Court as part of his testimony, Lambert described Rosli’s arrest as “distressing to witness” and “very disturbing”.

“This raw display of power and force was to me totally unnecessary and unbecoming of any professional law enforcement agency,” he said. “The only purpose it served was to embarrass and humiliate Rosli before his colleagues and staff.”

Earlier, Lambert narrated how, on the eve of Hari Raya in 2007, Rosli had sought out another of the firm’s partners, Kumar Kanagasingam, with whom Lambert was having lunch. “He looked troubled,” Lambert said

He told us he had received a visit from some ACA officers and that they had requested him to go to the ACA with them without saying why, Lambert testified.

“Around 2:30 pm, Rosli telephoned me (and) asked me to come to his room, Lambert told the court, “He mentioned some people were there.” Lambert’s evidence was that he saw three men there and that they told him that their instructions were to take Rosli to their office.

One of them, Mohan, dangled handcuffs in front of Rosli and claimed that he was under instructions to handcuff him, Lambert added.

“Mohan (then) made a call on his mobile. Shortly thereafter two men stormed into the room,” Lambert testified saying that, one of them, whose name was Sok One, “was particularly animated and aggressive.”

“Sok One shouted out to bring Rosli down and handcuff him,” Lambert recalled. “He also told Rosli he would punch him.” Rosli was in pain, and his wrists had begun to swell and bleed, he added.

Then Managing Partner of the firm Ng Leong Huat testified as to his ‘shock’ at seeing Rosli handcuffed, claiming that after much protest, one of the officers, Azam Baki, eventually relented and uncuffed him.

“I find it unacceptable that the ACA officers had breached our office security by forcing their way through our restricted area at Level 17,” he insisted. “That is not a public area. The ACA officers had no business to be there.”

He said news of Rosli’s arrest, which appeared in the mainstream news media, “led to a very negative impression of the firm,” “impacted on the firm’s revenue” and gave rise to “difficulty in bidding for work generally and especially with government agencies.”

Rosli’s own performance and revenue also deteriorated, he added. Kumar Kanagasingam, another partner of the firm, testified that he met a very worried Rosli at lunch time on the day of his arrest. He said on hearing of the ‘commotion’ in Rosli’s office, he rushed down but only managed to see Rosli getting into a car accompanied by ACA officers.

He also testified as to the difficulties, loss and hardships suffered by Rosli and the firm as a result of the former’s arrest and the subsequent criminal trial.

When trial resumed after lunch, two secretaries of the firm, Ayuniza Iswan and Lai Pey Niew En, also gave their own accounts of the arrest. They were cross-examined by Rishwant Singh, with Cecil Abraham absent from proceedings in the afternoon.

Epic battle looms in Rosli Dahlan Vs. MACC Case

May 18, 2015

Phnom Penh

Epic battle looms in Rosli Dahlan Vs. MACC Case

by FMT

Rosli Dahlan (new)The on-going legal action pitting practising lawyer Rosli Dahlan against the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) continues in the Kuala Lumpur High Court today with senior partner of the law firm of Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill, Lambert Rasa-Ratnam testifying on Rosli’s behalf.

Lambert’s testimony, especially under cross-examination by MACC’s lead counsel Cecil Abraham, is something that many in the legal circles have been hotly anticipating recently.Lambert is known to be the lawyer who advised the Bar Council in respect of a complaint preferred against Abraham by lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu.

According to Americk, Abraham had purportedly admitted to having drafted the late private investigator P Balasubramaniam’s second statutory declaration in which Bala had, under circumstances which to date have remained unexplained, recanted allegations made by him in a statutory declaration affirmed just one day earlier in connection with the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder.

Interested observers have said that they are looking to see whether Abraham will ‘exact his pound of flesh’ and how.

Thus far, the court has heard the evidence of Rosli, former MACC adviser Robert Phang and former deputy public prosecutor Shamsul Sulaiman about how a criminal case taken out by the MACC against Rosli was allegedly a frame-up.

Rosli’s evidence was that MACC had deliberately arrested him in the most brutal and humiliating way at his office,Abu Kassim detained him for one night and chargIng him in court just one day before Hari Raya. He claims that the entire episode was intended to destroy his reputation.

MA‎CC, for their part, have denied the allegations and have said that Rosli had been violent and abusive, allegations which Rosli claims have been fabricated.Other lawyers from the firm expected to testify on Rosli’s behalf include Ng Leong Huat and Kumar Kanagasingam.

The case is being heard before Justice Su Geok Yiam.

The Nik Raina Case comes to an end

May 13, 2015

Phnom Penh by The Mekong

The Nik Raina Case comes to an end

by Hafiz

Nik Raina winsBorders store manager Nik Raina Nik Abdul Aziz could have faced a maximum fine of RM3,000 or two years’ jail or both, if she had pleaded guilty or found guilty of selling a banned book at the Syariah High Court in Kuala Lumpur.

Instead Berjaya Corporation, which owns the Borders book chain, stood by Nik Raina when she claimed trial, and the company had to possibly fork out hundreds of thousands of ringgit in legal fees to defend her, for wrongly being persecuted by the Federal Territory Islamic Department (JAWI).

This follows JAWI’s raid and seizure of the book Allah, Liberty and Love, written by Canadian Muslim Irshad Manji (right) Irshad Manjion March 23, 2012.

The problem was that the book was not banned by the Home Ministry officials on March 23, but was only gazetted as being banned six days later, that is on March 29.

The legal fees is understood to be an approximate amount which Berjaya had to pay to Nik Raina’s lawyers and for standing by her in the three-year predicament, as JAWI cannot charge a company and a non-Muslim for such an offence.

Today, it was reported that JAWI agreed to withdraw its appeal at the Syariah Court of Appeal and stop all actions against Nik Raina. This follows a legal letter dated May 5 by Borders giving JAWI and its chief prosecutor seven days from receiving the letter to comply with the courts or face the prospect of committal proceedings.

Nik Raina thanks Employer and Laywer Rosli Dahlan

When contacted by Malaysiakini, Nik Raina expressed her gratitude to Berjaya chairperson and chief executive officer, Robin Tan, for coming up with the finances to support her, Borders chief operating officer Yau Su Peng  for standing by her and her lawyer Rosli Dahlan.yau-su-peng

Commenting on Jawi’s decision, Yau said it has come as a big surprise to her that JAWI has decided not to pursue Nik Raina.

“I am grateful that this matter in the Syariah court has finally come to a conclusion and I am happy for Nik Raina and her family that she is finally a free person again.

“I hope for the sake of Malaysia and Malaysians who want to work and earn a decent living, that public authorities especially the religious authorities will act in accordance with the rule of law and the constitution and take into consideration the diversity of our multricultural and multireligious society,” she said in a statement today.

She hopes that this is really the end of the ordeal for Nik Raina and they can all go back to ‎the business of running the bookstore.

MACC on Trial: Let the truth prevail!

April 11, 2015

MACC on Trial: Let the truth prevail!

by Din Merican

Free Malaysia Today (FMT) has been running the story on the Trial of Rosli Dahlan against Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and its officials which link provided below and the story is reproduced below in full:

Witness: MACC can be overzealous, unprofessional

Rosli Dahlan (new)


What is startling to me, and perhaps  to other readers of this blog, is that we first have an ex- Advisory member of the MACC Tan Sri Robert Phang revealing that the MACC is not independent and has been used by the A-G Gani Patail to fix trumped-up charges against Lawyer Rosli Dahlan.

Then we have ex-DPP Shamsul Sulaiman revealing more of A-G Gani Pataiil’s abuses in using the MACC to keep victimising Rosli. The fact that Shamsul was warned to stay away from the case shows the level of fear permeating within the A-G Chambers and the MACC of the A-G’s awesome powers. It became more glaring when ex-DPP Shamsul had to even seek the court’s protection that the evidence he gives in court should not be used to later persecute him. This is  even more worrisome.

It is troubling when witnesses are afraid to tell the truth in court for fear that the A-G would later charge them. Apparently, this had happened to Brig-Gen Dato Yassin when he gave evidence in the Kota Kinabalu Sessions Court before Judge Supang Lian. After giving evidence favoring Dato Ramli, Dato Yassin was charged. Readers will recall that Dato Ramli Yusuff was acquitted after Judge Supang Lian found that then IGP Musa Hassan had lied. Strangely, Musa was not charged for being an incredible witness whose evidence is to be disregarded.

It is scary to see the same scenario unfolding in Rosli’s trial. If witnesses feel intimidated and are fearful for their safety, then they will be afraid to tell the truth. Then the truth will never be known. Is that why we never get to know the truth of who killed Teoh Beng Hock? Is that why we never know who killed Ahmad Sarbaini?

The MACC has to account for these two deaths ‎but until now no one has been brought to book. In Ahmad Sarbaini’s case, the MACC could conveniently erase the CCTV recording of the events and the great Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah dismissed it as just an accidental erasure.

Lawyer Rosli Dahlan was fortunate that he was locked up in the dungeon of the MACC, otherwise he might also have been another dead body thrown off the MACC’s building!

I am worried for Rosli that if this intimidating tactic of the A-G and counsel Tan Sri Cecil Abraham are allowed to continue, then no witnesses will come forward to tell the truth. Then Rosli’s case will fail and we will never get to know of this conspiracy. No wonder, cases of this nature always fail.

I say to the MACC and the A-G, fight fairly. Don’t intimidate witnesses. Don’t frighten them. Let the truth prevail!

Rosli Dahlan Vs MACC– Witness: MACC can be overzealous, unprofessional

April 11, 2015

Witness: MACC can be overzealous, unprofessional

Court grants ex-DPP Shamsul Sulaiman immunity from prosecution in lawyer’s suit against MACC.

Rosli DKUALA LUMPUR: Stunning circumstances formed the basis on which former Deputy Public Prosecutor Shamsul Sulaiman gave evidence in court yesterday in the on-going trial of Rosli Dahlan’s suit against the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC) and the Government of Malaysia.The case is being heard before Justice Su Geok Yiam in the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

Addressing his concern that his evidence may be self-incriminatory, Shamsul told the presiding judge, “I am now concerned after testifying in court [that] my statement will be used against me.” Section 132(1) of the Evidence Act, 1950 provides that a witness is not excused from answering questions on the ground that the answers will incriminate him.

The Court, however, exercised its power under Section 132(2) to compel Shamsul to answer, thereby granting him immunity from arrest or prosecution in respect of the content of his evidence.

During his testimony, Shamsul told the Court that Rosli and he were good friends from their days together at the International Islamic University and that the relationship had continued throughout their working careers.

He said that upon being issued with notices to declare his assets, Rosli discussed the matter with him, raising various issues which troubled him about the contents and effect of the notices. Shamsul said that he sought clarification on the notices with DPP Anthony Kevin Morais who issued the notices, and Nordin Hassan the then head of ACA’s prosecution unit.

Kevin Morais

Anthony Kevin Morais (above)

“I was advised to stay away from the case as they were taking orders directly from the Attorney-General,” his witness statement read. “I kept my peace within Chambers from then on, all the while disappointed that senior officers of the organisation which I was serving for so long did not behave in what I thought should be the professional way we ought to.

He went on to testify that two days before Hari Raya in 2007, he received two calls from Rosli. In the first call Rosli informed him that ACA officers had turned up requesting that he accompany them to their office to record a statement.

“He told me that he managed to negotiate with the officers to postpone the recording of the statement….., but at the back of his mind he was concerned and had the feeling that the officers would come back to arrest him.

“A couple of hours later, Rosli called me again in a very short and anxious call to tell me that the ACA officers were back and had announced to his office that they were looking for him to arrest him,” his statement went on.

According to Shamsul, he later found out that Rosli had been arrested that day and made arrangements to be present with Rosli’s wife at the ACA Headquarters that night.

Upon arriving at the ACA office, Shamsul joined Rosli’s wife and two other lawyers, Chetan and Harvey.

We just waited”.

“As we waited, I telephoned DPP Anthony Kevin Morais who told me that the investigators were going to let Rosli go once they finished recording his statement.

“Time passed slowly. As midnight approached we saw officers leaving and we thought our wait would be over soon. The officers left quite hurriedly and it seemed to me that they were avoiding us,” Shamsul testified further.

Calls to enquire went unanswered and security guards at the front desk were unhelpful.“We received no cooperation from them except to be told that we should just leave,” he added.

They eventually did. The next morning, he was surprised to find that Rosli had been brought by ACA to the courtroom via the public corridor instead of through the lock-up lifts system.

Noting that they had opted not to access the courtroom via the complex’s more private passageways as would usually be done in criminal cases, he added, “I have come to learn that the ACA are in the habit of parading the persons whom they prosecute, having tipped off the media who will turn up in full force.”

The next day, on Hari Raya morning, the newspapers carried news of Rosli being charged with large photographs on their front pages.

“I felt outraged at what I thought was unfair timing of (their) action,” he testified.He said that the whole experience had made Rosli a bitter, lethargic and dejected man who had lost confidence in the legal system to the extent of wanting to cease practice.

“Although he spoke well of his firm and partners throughout the ordeal, I sensed the pressure that Rosli’s prosecution had brought on the firm and I thought there almost came a time when [his] firm saw him as a liability,” he added.

Shamsul testified that he was in Court when Rosli was acquitted. The Sessions Court had ruled that he was not Ramli’s associate and was not within the category of persons who were required to declare their assets, he added.

These were the very questions for which Rosli had sought clarification from the ACA in the first place, Shamsul claimed.

Abdul Razak MusaHe said that subsequently, MACC’s Director of Prosecutions Abdul Razak Musa (left) sought his help to contact Rosli discreetly to set up a meeting to explore a possibility of settling Rosli’s suit. A meeting was eventually held between the two in Shamsul’s presence but no deal was struck, he testified.

He said that the prosecution’s appeal against Rosli’s acquittal was eventually withdrawn on the morning of the hearing.

“It was hard to see a close friend suffer at the hands of people whom I consider also friends,” Shamsul said in his Witness Statement.

“MACC can be overzealous to the extent of behaving unprofessionally,” he added.Under cross-examination by MACC’s counsel Cecil Abraham, Shamsul denied that his role in the episode placed him in a position of conflict of interest.

The trial continues.

Why is MACC and Abu Kassim so dishonorable in the Trial of Rosli Dahlan?

April 6, 2015


Breaking News! Why is MACC and Abu Kassim so dishonorable in the Trial of Rosli Dahlan?

by Din Merican

 Abu KassimTake Responsibility and Apologise

This morning‎, the trial of Rosli Dahlan against Utusan Malaysia, the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission and 15 Other Defendants was supposed to start before High Court Judge Datuk Su Geok Yam. The courtroom was packed with reporters, Rosli’s wife and family and MACC officers. Also seen were Dato Ramli Yusuff and Tan Sri Robert Phang.

Judge Su noted that a majority of the Defendants including Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Abu Kassim and Kevin Morais, the source of all these problems, were absent. Instead the MACC appeared through 6 counsels including 2 paralegals. The most notable was that MACC is no longer represented by the Attorney General Chambers but by private senior lawyer Tan Sri Cecil Abraham.

Now, that’s an expensive switch! In a turn of events, counsel for Utusan Malaysia informed the court that they want to settle the case and want to make a public apology to Rosli Dahlan in open court. ‎ This is great!

Utusan has crumbled even before the trial starts. Judge Su invited Rosli to come forward and sit in one of the counsel’s chairs while Rosli’s wife, family and friends then listened attentively to senior Legal Manager ‎ and company secretary of Utusan Encik Shirad Anwar reading the following public apology in open court: “

1.On  October 12, 2007, while the Muslim community were preparing to celebrate Hari Raya Aidilfitri, we had published a news article about the arrest and prosecution of Lawyer Rosli Dahlan with the title “Police Lawyer failed to declare asset charged in court today” (“the Article”)

2. Shortly after the publication of the Article, upon demand by Lawyer Rosli Dahlan, we had among others, on  April 15, 2008, published at page 4 of Utusan Malaysia newspaper, an unconditional and unreserved Public Apology to Lawyer Rosli Dahlan (hereinafter referred to as the said Public Apology”), the contents of which are as follows.

3. That we had made several allegations which were untrue against Lawyer Rosli Dahlan as follows:

3.1. That he is a Singapore citizen who carries out legal practice in Malaysia, whereas he is truly and indeed a Malaysian citizen;

3.2. That he has breached the laws of the country by refusing to make an asset declaration, whereas he had indeed made the said declaration;

3.3. That he had hidden the asset of a Senior Police Officer who was under investigation by the ACA (Anti-Corruption Agency), whereas he never did that;

3.4. That he is of malevolent character and had acted deceptively in his dealings to frustrate the ACA investigations, whereas he had always fully co-operated with the ACA and his actions were always within the requirements of the law.

3.5 Our said article has given a totally wrong depiction of Lawyer Rosli Dahlan as a foreign lawyer who had acted in a manner contrary to the proper behaviour and ethics of an advocate and solicitor.

3.6 We acknowledge and expressed our deepest regrets that the said article was written and published in a sensational manner to generate publicity which exceeded the parameters of ethical journalism surrounding the investigation of YDH Dato’ Pahlawan Haji Ramli Haji Yusuff who at that time held the post of Director of the Commercial Crime Investigation Department of Police Di-Raja Malaysia.

4. We hereby again, upon request and with the consent and express agreement of lawyer Rosli Dahlan, repeat the contents of the said Public Apology referred to above and hereby again unconditionally and unreservedly apologise to lawyer Rosli Dahlan for our said untruthful article and we regret the damage that we have caused to him.

5. We further acknowledge that lawyer Rosli Dahlan has been conclusively discharged and acquitted by the court from all charges made against him by the ACA which is now known as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

The question on everyone’s mind is why then is MACC not apologising? Why waste taxpayers’ money engaging expensive Cecil Abraham to defend a wrong that was committed to an innocent professional? I say to MACC – be honorable. Own up, apologise and pay up! Don’t waste the Courts’ time and taxpayers’ money to defend yourself.