By Clara Chooi
IPOH, Nov 19 — A Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) witness caused a stir in court today when he said one of the accused in the corruption trial of two former Perak PKR state executive councillors had actually been the commission’s “middleman”.
The witness, MACC assistant superintendent Razril Mokrish Mohd Yusof, however was quick to retract his statement and apologised to the court for his mistake.
The “middleman” he was referring to was the late former Perak Development Corporation technician Ruslan Sahat, who was initially one of the accused in the case until he passed away in August this year.
Throughout the trial, which implicates, among others, two former PKR state executive councillors Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu, the defence panel had been attempting to establish to the court that Ruslan had actually been an MACC agent himself.
The issue had been raised several times especially during cross-examination of the trial’s star witness, Mohamad Imran Abdullah, who had been the MACC’s agent provocateur in laying the trap for all the accused.
The other accused in the case include PKR politician Usaili Alias, former Perak Tengah district councillor Zul Hassan and businessman Fairul Azrim Ismail. They are accused of accepting bribes from Mohamad Imran in exchange for helping the latter obtain a RM180 million housing project in Seri Iskandar last year.
Razril Mokrish’s little “slip-up” today lends an interesting twist to the already sordid tale of sex, bribes and entrapment, for his admission was made in open court.
The defence team also made sure to jump on this new piece of evidence despite the fact that the prosecution’s formal witness had retracted his words.
The matter cropped up during examination-in-chief by MACC deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Sazilee Abdul Khairi, who had asked for Razril Mokrish’s account of the events on Aug 6 last year.
Ahmad Sazilee: Explain to the court what happened on Aug 6 last year.
Razril Mokrish: That day, (MACC officer Mohd) Firdaus (Idris), Mohamad Imran and I went to Excelsior Hotel. When we arrived, Mohamad Imran entered first. I had already equipped him with a pinhole camera, in the form of a Motorola handphone, and I had also taught him how to use it.
Ahmad Sazilee: And then what happened?
Razril Mokrish explained that both he and Firdaus only entered the hotel later, whereby Firdaus remained in the lobby while he (Razril Mokrish) walked into the coffeehouse where Mohamad Imran was.
Razril Mokrish: That was where I saw Mohamad Imran with a man whom I suspected was Ruslan.
Ahmad Sazilee: How did you suspect that it was Ruslan?
Razril Mokrish: Because at the (MACC) office before heading to the hotel, Firdaus had already told me that he was using a middleman by the name of “Ruslan”.
At this point, Razril Mokrish paused in the midst of his testimony and then said, “I’m sorry. What I meant was that when we were at the (MACC) office, Firdaus told me that there would be a meeting later (in Excelsior) between Mohamad Imran and Ruslan.”
His earlier statement, however, caught the attention of the defence team and lawyer Surjan Singh then stood up and told the court to record Razril Mokrish’s statements.
“I would like to appeal to the court to keep record of the witness’ first answer and take note of the fact that he had answered first and only then moved to correct himself,” said Surjan.
When the questioning resumed, Ahmad Sazilee made it a point to seek an explanation from Razril Mokrish over the latter’s conflicting statements earlier.
Ahmad Sazilee: At first you said that Firdaus mentioned he had a middleman called “Ruslan” and then you changed your statement. Please explain your answer.
Razril Mokrish: No, no. I accidentally said the wrong thing.
Later, Razril Mokrish explained to the court that his role in the case was to handle the video records.
He added that he had expertise in handling the recording equipment for he had undergone a video technical course at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Academy.
“Basically, there are two types of recording – one is a direct recording from a pinhole camera that is connected with a wire to a Sony Handycam and another is a wireless type, whereby a receiver is fitted onto the Handycam. The wireless one can record within a range of 10m to 15m,” he said.
Razril Mokrish, however, admitted that the recordings that he had made on Aug 6 in Excelsior Hotel and Aug 8 in First Coffehouse, Ipoh, were not clear in both its visuals and audio.
Later, the court again viewed videos of the sexual acts allegedly performed between one of the accused, Zul and a Chinese national on Aug 14, 2008, at the Sri Sayang apartments in Batu Feringghi, Penang.
The defence team, however, argued that when the videos were played for the court earlier, the words “modified” and the date of “Oct 12, 2006” was written on one of the recording frames.
They claimed that this showed the videos had been doctored.
During today’s viewing however, the words could not be seen
Ahmad Sazilee told the court that it could be because different software was used to play the recording.
“If the court would allow, I do not mind bringing in the same computer that was used to replay the recordings so that we can use the same software,” he said.
The trial resumes tomorrow.
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
