DAY 7 – 8 APRIL 2003 (part 1)

On 2 August 1998, Manjeet was called by Gani and Azhar where he (Manjeet) was asked to get his client, Dato Nalla, to fabricate evidence against Anwar. If Dato Nalla was to say that he had arranged several women for Anwar, the charge of being in possession of ammunition would be reduced to that of a lesser charge. If not, Dato Nalla would face the death sentence.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin

The AG and the Prosecutor did not blackmail Dato Nalla; they just plea bargained

What everyone had been waiting for finally arrived. Yusof Zainal Abidin denied the allegation by a prominent lawyer and one-time Bar Council Chairman, Manjeet Singh Dhillon, that the Attorney-General, Abdul Gani Patail, and Azhar Mohamad, had blackmailed his (Manjeet’s) client, Dato Nalla Karuppan, with threats of the death sentence unless he agreed to fabricate evidence against Anwar Ibrahim.

It was not blackmail but plea bargaining, explained Yusof to a most amused courtroom.

On 2 August 1998, Manjeet was called by Gani and Azhar where he (Manjeet) was asked to get his client, Dato Nalla, to fabricate evidence against Anwar. If Dato Nalla was to say that he had arranged several women for Anwar, the charge of being in possession of ammunition would be reduced to that of a lesser charge. If not, Dato Nalla would face the death sentence.

On 12 August 1998, Manjeet signed a Statutory Declaration which he sent to the then AG, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, relating the entire incident. He also wrote a letter detailing what happened.

“The meeting of 2 August 1998 is all about plea bargaining,” said Yusof.

“Manjeet wanted the charge against his client to be reduced to one under the Arms Act 1960 and it would appear that Dato Gani would only agree if Nalla was prepared to cooperate to give information concerning several women.”

“It is something which is permissible under the law.”

“It would be very wrong to allege that it amounted to a threat to maintain a lawful charge if Nalla was not prepared to cooperate.”

Yusof then asked the court, if what the AG had tried to do was so wrong, why did Manjeet agree to talk to Dato Nalla about it instead of protesting?

“Yet, when Dato Gani allegedly told him that he wanted the fabricated evidence from Nalla, there was not a trace of anger or disappointment which he demonstrated through his Statutory Declaration or letter?”

“He meekly said, 'If that is your request, I will convey it to my client',” said Yusof.

Yusof added that the Defence never adduced as evidence the tape recording of the conversation alleging that Gani and Azhar had blackmailed Dato Nalla to fabricate evidence against Anwar. In short, the defence had their chance to prove this serious allegation but it goofed.

Fernando, now infuriated, stood up to say that the Defence had told the court about the existence of the tape and they had actually brought the tape to court and offered to play it for them but the Prosecution did not want to hear it.

The Bench then interjected to ask whether this ‘offer’ was on record to which the Prosecution replied it was not.

“That’s the end of the story then,” retorted Richard Malanjun.

Fernando was not about to let the judge get away with this and he replied, “That’s not the end of the story.”

Fernando then informed the court that the exchange did take place but the judge did not record it.
And this is yet another incident of proceedings in the trial missing from the records.