Possible conflict of interest in Shahrizat’s husband’s property purchase, claims MP

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 7 — Former lawmaker Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil’s political positions raised valid questions on a possible conflict of interest in her husband’s purchase of eight properties worth millions, PKR vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar told the High Court here today.

Nurul Izzah claimed that Shahrizat, as former Lembah Pantai MP, would have prior knowledge of the luxurious KL Eco City development in the same constituency, saying that a federal lawmaker could “abuse” such information and pass it on.

Nurul Izzah, the current Lembah Pantai MP, also noted that Shahrizat was Wanita Umno chief, saying that the land where the property was built was previously owned by an Umno-linked company, Yayasan Gerak Bakti Kebangsaan.

“It is impossible to divorce these facts that eventually her husband came to own not just one, but eight luxurious units,” Nurul Izzah told her lawyer Joshua Kevin Sathiaseelan during re-examination at the hearing of the defamation suit by Shahrizat’s husband Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail against Nurul Izzah and PKR.

Mohamad Salleh is suing Nurul Izzah and her party PKR over her allegedly defamatory statement that he had misused a multi-million federal loan for a national cattle-farming project to obtain bank loans to buy eight units of the KL Eco City development.

In the same suit filed by beef production firm National Feedlot Corporation (NFCorp) and its chairman Mohamad Salleh, Nurul Izzah was also alleged to have raised questions over a possible conflict of interest over Shahrizat’s role in the property purchase.

Explaining why she had raised the issue of possible conflict of interest, Nurul Izzah said she wanted Shahrizat to respond.

“She was the member of Parliament, she was also head of Umno Wanita and this was a land that was partly owned by entity fully controlled by Umno Youth.

“And she must answer the question, that’s why I raised it in my statement in order to get more clarification,” the second-term Lembah Pantai MP said.

Earlier today, Nurul Izzah also told her lawyer that she did not have any malice when making her allegedly defamatory statements in a March 7, 2012 press conference, saying: “For me, there was no malicious intention”.

When quizzed by Mohamad Salleh’s lead counsel Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah, Nurul Izzah acknowledged that anyone could have purchased the properties.

The federal lawmaker, however, insisted that there could be conflict of interest if an individual “was involved in the eviction of squatters” and has a stake in the land through their political party, though she later admitted that Shahrizat was “not directly” involved in the eviction.

During cross-examination, Nurul Izzah admitted that she had not contacted the plaintiffs through registered letters to get clarification, explaining that it was “difficult” as it was then a “very hostile” situation.

She disagreed that she could have sought Shahrizat’s clarification in Parliament as the then Women, Family and Community Development minister was not in charge of the matter, also citing a “very hostile” situation.

When asked if she had carried out further investigation after making the statements on the property purchase, Nurul Izzah said she could not obtain more information from Public Bank – the bank where NFCorp had kept RM71.4 million out of the RM250 million federal loan.

On Monday, Mohamad Salleh had said he did not borrow any loans from Public Bank for the eight units as the bank withdrew its letter of offer before Nurul Izzah’s March 2012 remarks, saying that the RM71.4 million in government loan was not used as leverage and was not at risk.

Nurul Izzah said today that she was only aware that Mohamad Salleh had not taken bank loans for the KL Eco City purchases during his testimony on Monday.

She insisted that the bank statements during her 2012 press conference with then PKR strategy director Rafizi Ramli indicated that there were loan accounts in the bank for the eight units, despite Shafee pointing out that his client had said the accounts were set up for the prospective loans that failed to materialise.

“At end of the day, it’s clearly a loan account, whether you take it or not, it’s up to you,” she said in reply to Shafee.

Earlier, Shafee asked her to read out a January 4, 2012 letter from Public Bank to inform the withdrawal of the letter of offer.

Pointing out that the bank documents were freshly printed on February 16 or two weeks before the 2012 conference, Nurul Izzah also told her lawyer today that she was satisfied that they were “legitimate” documents, pointing out that the other side had not challenged the documents.

“It’s self-explanatory, genuine accounts, why do we have to ask further?” she asked when explaining why she had not made further investigations before her 2012 press conference.

Nurul Izzah also denied today that she had meant to say that the federal loan given to NFCorp was used to make the private purchase of the eight units by Mohamad Salleh, instead pointing to Rafizi’s suggestion that the money was used as leverage to obtain bank loans.

Nurul Izzah is the sole defence witness, while Mohamad Salleh was the sole witness for both himself and his beef production firm National Feedlot Corporation (NFCorp).

The next court date for both sides to file their replies before High Court judge Datuk Hue Siew Kheng has been fixed for February 4.