KUALA LUMPUR: There were some heated moments in Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor's corruption trial today when her lawyers tried to get a key witness to explain why he had withdrawn RM1.5 million from his account in 2017.
The witness repeatedly answered that he had withdrawn the money to be given to Rosmah, but her lawyers tried to argue that he had actually used the money for other purposes.
The witness - Jepak Holdings managing director Saidi Abang Samsudin - refused to budge from his answer and insisted that he had withdrawn the money for Rosmah.
His answer and the defence contention led to arguments between Deputy Public Prosecutor Ahmad Akram Abdul Gharib and Rosmah's lawyers Azrol Zulkifli Stork, Datuk Akberdin Abdul Kader and Datuk Jagjit Singh.
At one point, a bemused High Court Judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan remarked in jest that the lawyers were arguing as if they had watched too much of Parliament proceedings.
The drama began when Azrol put a general question to Saidi on why one withdraws money from the bank.
Saidi agreed with Azrol's suggestion that people only do so when they need it.
Azrol then asked Saidi why he had withdrawn the RM1.5 million on Sept 7, 2017, to which the witness replied that it was for Rosmah.
Not satisfied with the answer, Azrol asked Saidi to explain a series of other payments he had made during the period - including to buy a piece of land, payment for a business deal, payment to his brother, donation to a charitable organisation and some personal transactions.
He tried to get Saidi to agree that the RM1.5 million was actually used for this purpose but the latter remained steadfast in his answer.
Azrol: Earlier you agreed that one only withdraws money when they need to use the cash.
Saidi: Yes
Azrol: However, these other transactions were also concluded during the same period...the total amount is also almost RM1.5 million.
Saidi: I have said it many times. I bought two bags, withdrew the money and it was meant for Rosmah. I am a businessman and I also had cash at home to be used for other purposes.
At this point Azrol applied to have a copy of Saidi's statement which was recorded by the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) as the defence wanted to see what he had told the graft busters about the issue.
However, Akram objected to the application and said Rosmah's lawyers were just on a fishing trip in an attempt to establish Saidi had used the money for other purposes.
He, however, said the prosecution was willing to submit parts of Saidi's statement to the MACC for the court to view and decide if the witness had indeed given contradictory testimony.
Later, Akerdin told the court that the defence wanted to make an application to impeach Saidi as they had a hunch the witness had given contradictory answers to the MACC compared to what he testified in court.
The lawyers however decided to revert to the court whether they intended to pursue with the impeachment application after the judge warned them of the consequences.
Zaini said the defence must be clear that the court may take it for a fact that the RM1.5 million was indeed given to Rosmah if there were no contradictions in Saidi's testimony in court and what he had told the MACC.
Jagjit said the defence will inform the court at the coming hearing date on Sept 7 on their next course of action.
Rosmah, 68, is accused of soliciting RM187.5 million from Saidi as an inducement to help his company secure a RM1.25 billion project to supply solar hybrid energy to 369 schools in the interiors of Sarawak.
She is also accused of receiving bribes amounting to RM6.5 million from Saidi between 2016 and 2017.