KOLUMNIS HANIFF KHATRI: Kesan & Akibat Kandungan Alasan Penghakiman Bertulis Mahkamah Tinggi Dalam Kes Fitnah Apandi Ali Vs Lim Kit Siang

KOLUMNIS HANIFF KHATRI: Kesan & Akibat Kandungan Alasan Penghakiman Bertulis Mahkamah Tinggi Dalam Kes Fitnah Apandi Ali Vs Lim Kit Siang

Wahai Rakyat Malaysia yang prihatin, Assalamualaikum dan Salam Sejahtera.

Dalam satu TINDAKAN FITNAH yang difailkan oleh APANDI ALI pada 05.07.2019 terhadap LIM KIT SIANG di MAHKAMAH TINGGI KUALA LUMPUR berkaitan satu Artikel tulisan LIM KIT SIANG bertajuk “Dangerous fallacy to think Malaysia’s on the road to integrity”, MAHKAMAH TINGGI itu telah membuat KEPUTUSAN pada 23.05.2022 untuk TOLAK tindakan APANDI ALI dan memerintahkan APANDI ALI membayar LIM KIT SIANG “kos” sebanyak RM 80,000.

APANDI ALI telah failkan RAYUAN ke MAHKAMAH RAYUAN, dan lanjutan daripada itu seperti yang diperlukan di sisi sistem kehakiman dan perundangan MAHKAMAH TINGGI KUALA LUMPUR telah mengeluarkan ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN BERTULIS pada 21.07.2022, seperti yang telah dipetik secara ringkas dan dilaporkan oleh THE EDGE MARKETS 22.07.2022 bertajuk “Judge: Apandi seemed disinterested and self contradictory when quizzed about Saudi donation”, dan bahagian-bahagian penting ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN BERTULIS seperti yang dipetik oleh THE EDGE MARKETS adalah :

“Former attorney-general Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali seemed disinterested and at times self contradictory when testifying in the RM10 million defamation suit he filed against DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang, the High Court noted.

Justice Datuk Azimah Omar, who had dismissed the suit, described in her 100-page judgement released on Thursday (July 21) that it was most telling and revealing evidence that Apandi overtly showed disinterest and indifference to elementary rule of law and even common sense.

The court noticed this when Apandi was questioned continuously by Lim’s lawyers over absolving Dato’ Sri Najib Razak by accepting the argument that the amount of more than RM2.6 billion that the former Prime Minister received was from a Saudi royalty.

“Although with utmost respect, this court is pressed to express its disdain to the sordid extent of the plaintiff’s self-contradictory testimony, evasiveness and outright untruth.

“It is not exactly rocket-science to appreciate the issue of the RM2.6 billion (which Apandi had declared as donation) would be the core and fulcrum to his very own case swings and tilts by.  It would be a grave remiss if the plaintiff were to avail himself to this court, without being candid and without being fully equipped to the brim to justify his magnanimous decision to prefer the donation narrative to exonerate Najib,” the judge said.

Touching on Apandi’s press conference on Jan 26, 2016, where the former Attorney-general accepted the donation narrative and absolved Najib, Justice Azimah pointed out that Apandi seemed to have contradicted himself when cross-examined by Lim’s lawyers.

Apandi had said that the MACC itself had met and recorded statements from the donors, she noted.

However, Justice Azimah noticed that when cross-examined over the press statement in which Apandi brazenly announced that a delegation had flown to Riyadh and personally met the alleged donor himself, the former Attorney-general seemed to have contradicted and admitted that the delegation did not meet nor speak to the donor.

This was evident in Apandi’s testimony when he testified that the “Saudi Prince refused to meet anybody”.

“The contradiction is not merely an error but instead a total contradiction. It is indeed suspicious and reasonable to ponder the necessity to be deceptive about the critical proof of the alleged donation by the Saudi royal family.

“Why would the AG bend the truth about the meeting and recording [of] the statement by the alleged donor? Why would the AG declare to the world that the delegation met the donor (and obtained confirmation from the donor), while it was well within his knowledge that his delegation did not even speak or meet with the fabled donor,” she asked.

“The court is utterly confounded by the plaintiff’s testimony admitting to adopting the donation narrative as a whole, although in gross absence of direct evidence and in preference to the delegation’s hearsay evidence. It is right there that Apandi’s own testimony exhibited a plain, disinterested, evasive and disassociated attitude to investigate the donation further,” she said.

The judge also admonished Apandi for not even remembering the name of the purported Saudi royal donor who allegedly made the donation.

This, she stressed, was critical information and justified Lim’s imputation (in his statement) that Apandi should be investigated.

The court also questioned Apandi’s move to close the investigation papers by citing no further action (NFA) after the infamous press conference, when the former Attorney-general himself said he did not intend to bar any further investigation from the agencies.

“The court is inclined to agree that NFA means Apandi had closed investigations. How can the plaintiff insist that the investigations are closed when he has already come to the conclusion that Najib has done no wrong and is receiving the ‘fantastical’ donation narrative,” she added.

“His (Apandi’s) own witness had testified that the plaintiff has insisted on concluding investigations, although the task force recommended continued investigations,” she added.”

(Laporan lengkap THE EDGE MARKETS 22.07.2022 bertajuk “Judge: Apandi seemed disinterested and self contradictory when quizzed about Saudi donation”, adalah dimuat naik di Ruang Bawah untuk kemudahan rujukan kesemua yang prihatin)

https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/judge-apandi-seemed-disinterested-and-self-contradictory-when-quizzed-about-saudi-donation

PERSOALAN PENTING yang tertampil daripada kandungan ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN BERTULIS, walaupun cuma setakat bahagian “penting dan jelas” yang dilaporkan, seperti yang dipetik dan dirujuk di atas, adalah :

“Apakah KESAN dan AKIBAT daripada ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN BERTULIS tersebut kepada APANDI ALI, dan tindakan-tindakan yang wajar dikaji untuk diambil oleh pihak berkuasa berkaitan, termasuk Peguam Negara TS IDRUS HARUN dan SPRM serta pihak Kerajaan Malaysia di bawah Perdana Menteri Ke-9 DS ISMAIL SABRI YAAKOB??!!”

Walaupun RAYUAN yang difailkan mengikut hak perundangan APANDI ALI masih belum didengar dan diputuskan oleh MAHKAMAH RAYUAN, namun ianya TIDAK MENGHALANG kesemua pihak yang berkaitan untuk mengambil tindakan-tindakan yang perlu pada masa ini, iaitu :

  1. Berkaitan Peguam Negara TS IDRUS HARUN dan SPRM :

Peguam Negara TS IDRUS HARUN, sebagai “pelindung sistem keadilan negara”, wajar mengeluarkan permintaan kepada SPRM untuk mengkaji dengan teliti keseluruhan ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN BERTULIS itu bagi tujuan mengenal pasti sama ada penemuan HAKIM MAHKAMAH TINGGI KUALA LUMPUR, walaupun di dalam kes sivil itu sekalipun, telah menampilkan asas untuk “BUKA SIASATAN” terhadap APANDI ALI berkaitan kemungkinan kewujudan jenayah, di atas tindakan APANDI ALI untuk mengumumkan semasa Sidang Media pada 26.01.2016, yang NAJIB RAZAK tiada apa-apa penglibatan jenayah berkaitan Skandal 1MDB, di bawah Seksyen 23 AKTA SPRM yang berbunyi :

“23. (1) Mana-mana pegawai badan awam yang menggunakan

jawatan atau kedudukannya untuk apa-apa suapan, sama ada

bagi dirinya sendiri, saudaranya atau sekutunya, melakukan suatu

kesalahan.”, dan

2. Berkaitan Kerajaan Malaysia di bawah Perdana Menteri Ke-9 DS ISMAIL SABRI YAAKOB :

Dengan kewujudan penemuan-penemuan MAHKAMAH TINGGI KUALA LUMPUR di dalam ALASAN PENGHAKIMAN BERTULIS itu yang mengatakan bahawa MAHKAMAH itu telah mendapati bahawa KETERANGAN APANDI ALI itu bukan sahaja BERCANGGAH, malah TIDAK BOLEH DIPERCAYAI berhubung pelbagai isu di dalam kes itu, maka APANDI ALI wajar ditamatkan kesemua jawatan lantikan yang dipegang oleh APANDI ALI di bawah Kerajaan DS ISMAIL SABRI, termasuk dan tidak terhad kepada jawatannya sebagai Pengerusi JAWATANKUASA SIASATAN berkaitan isu BATU PUTEH, di atas sebab ianya TIDAK LAGI SELAMAT untuk menerima KREDIBILITI berkaitan APANDI ALI untuk terlibat dalam isu BATU PUTEH itu yang sememangnya APANDI ALI mempunyai “konflik kepentingan” pun!!

Hatta, TS IDRUS HARUN dan DS ISMAIL SABRI YAAKOB berkewajiban untuk mengeluarkan satu KENYATAAN RASMI berhubung perkara-perkara yang dibangkitkan di Perenggan 4(a) dan 4(b) di atas, pada kadar serta-merta!!

DEMI AGAMA DAN NEGARA TERCINTA!!!

CATEGORIES

COMMENTS

Wordpress (0)
Disqus (0 )