Apandi S Civil Suit Demolishes 1mdb Donation Theory

---

 



It was a time when the mainstream media refused or was instructed not to publish anything on 1MDB that would put the then prime minister in a bad light.
It was a time when editors and journalists were detained for supposedly breaching that order, The Edge and its sister publication, The Edge Financial Daily had their licences suspended for three months for reporting on 1MDB.
It was a time when two men, supposed to be aligned with another former prime minister were detained under the draconian Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) for alleged “economic sabotage”.
It was also the time which was described as the night of the long knives when the serving attorney-general and the head of the MACC were removed from their posts unceremoniously.
It was also a time when almost all instruments of the state were used to suppress the truth and the origins of the missing billions from 1MDB. Everything was said to be hunky dory in what was described as the “sovereign wealth fund”.
The gloomy events and scenarios of seven years ago were recalled when reading the 100-page judgment in the case of Mohamed Apandi Ali vs Lim Kit Siang. The judgment was released last Thursday.
Justice Azimah Omar noted that former attorney-general Apandi’s defamation suit was mainly related to the “globally infamous” 1MDB scandal, also including the SRC International case, which she said is still plaguing Malaysia to this very day.
She also noted that history can only regard the scandal as the “greatest and vile corruption and thievery of the modern times”.
Parts of the judgment were damning indeed and, read in totality, it was a scathing indictment of the conduct of Apandi (above), who was then the attorney-general in the wake of allegations of impropriety against then prime minister Najib Abdul Razak.
Apandi, she wrote, overtly showed disinterest and indifference to elementary rule of law and even common sense.
Apandi’s ‘outright untruth’
The judge noted that his decision to clear Najib of wrongdoing and to instead choose the “fantastical narrative of an unproven decision” was the most telling evidence that purportedly showed Apandi’s alleged disinterest and indifference to the rule of law and even common sense.
During the trial, Apandi was questioned continuously by Lim's lawyers over absolving Najib by accepting the argument that the amount of more than RM2.6 billion that the former prime minister received was from a Saudi royal.
“Although with the utmost respect, this court is pressed to express its disdain to the sordid extent of the plaintiff's (Apandi’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 a 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 noted.
Crucially, the judge asked: “Why would the attorney-general bend the truth about meeting and recording a statement by the alleged donor?
“Why would the attorney-general declare to the world that his delegation has 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?”
In a tell-all press conference in 2016, Apandi waved sheets of “evidence” he claimed exonerated Najib of any wrongdoing.
Then AG Mohamed Apandi Ali’s press conference in 2016 clearing then prime minister Najib Abdul Razak of wrongdoingApandi said that about US$620 million (RM2.35 billion) of the money Najib received from alleged Arab donors had been returned to the Saudi royal family because “it wasn’t used”.
He suggested that there was no evidence Najib was “even aware of the transfer and that it was given by the Saudi royal family without any consideration.”
He also declared no criminal offence was committed and there was no need for Malaysia to request legal assistance from any foreign states to complete the investigation.
‘Fabled and fantastical donation’
But Azimah noted: “Through the entire breadth of the plaintiff’s (Apandi’s) testimony, the plaintiff failed to give any cogent reasons behind his perplexing insistence to adopt the donation narrative (while absolving Najib) although he readily admitted that his Riyadh delegation utterly failed in its mission to verify the truth behind the fabled and fantastical donation.
“The plaintiff further failed to afford any sound justification behind his puzzling decision to bend the truth regarding the supposed success of the Riyadh delegation (while in truth and reality, the Riyadh delegation failed to speak or even meet with the fabled donor).
“The plaintiff also failed to explain his glaring lack of proper knowledge behind the supposed evidence and statements the Riyadh delegation collected, to the extent that the plaintiff could not even remember the name of the fabled or famous donor he so intently contended upon.”
When the 1MDB scandal broke, Najib claimed the money was from an Arab prince for the 2014 general election.
In a 2017 column, I wrote: “From day one, Najib has maintained the RM2.6 billion in his bank account was a personal donation from a Saudi prince with no strings attached.
“But this has been contradicted by the US Department of Justice which claims the money was part of an elaborate money-laundering scheme which involved many parties, including an associate of the prime minister, Jho Low.
“If the Saudi prince had indeed remitted the money, surely he would have supporting documents and if these are made public, the theories put forward by the DOJ can be debunked.
“It is as simple as that. With the entire hullabaloo over the donation and rumblings among Malaysians, one phone call for the documents would silence all the critics.”
The findings of the court demolish this theory that is continually espoused by Najib to his followers who call him Bossku that the money in his bank was a donation.
Now that the theory of the Arab donor has been demolished by the court, what will his new mantra be?- Mkini

R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: [email protected].
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---