PUTRAJAYA, March 10 — Then prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had been shocked and upset that RM42 million had entered his personal bank accounts through the company carrying out 1Malaysia Development Berhad’s (1MDB) corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, a witness known as “Mr CSR” told the court today.
Datuk Dr Shamsul Anwar Sulaiman, who was formerly 1MDB’s executive director in the CSR division and Ihsan Perdana Sdn Bhd’s managing director, said this while testifying as the 14th defence witness in Najib’s 1MDB trial.
Dr Shamsul told the High Court that he is known as “Mr CSR” or “Dr Sam CSR”, and said Ihsan Perdana was set up to carry out CSR work for 1MDB. He said the company received a total of RM40 million each year from Yayasan 1MDB (Y1MDB) and Yayasan Rakyat1Malaysia (YR1M) to fund such activities.
Dr Shamsul said that in July 2015, he discovered from a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article that the RM42 million — which his company Ihsan Perdana had transferred to Najib’s private bank accounts — had originated from 1MDB’s subsidiary SRC International Sdn Bhd’s unit Gandingan Mentari Sdn Bhd.
He also stated that around July 2015, Najib had called him and asked if it was true he had transferred the RM42 million in three separate transactions. Dr Shamsul confirmed that he had made the transfers to the account without knowing who it belonged to.
Claiming that Najib had asked him why he had transferred the money into that account, Dr Shamsul said he explained that he had followed the instructions of YR1M officials and believed the RM42 million payment was for CSR purposes.
“From his reaction over the phone, it appeared to me that Datuk Seri Najib was taken aback, as I distinctly heard him mutter under his breath, ‘My God’,” he said.
After being remanded and questioned by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in July 2015, Dr Shamsul said he met Najib in the latter’s house at Jalan Langgak Duta, Kuala Lumpur where they spoke about MACC’s interrogation.
Dr Shamsul said he told Najib that he had discovered during MACC’s questioning that the account which Ihsan Perdana sent money to actually belonged to the latter.
“Datuk Seri Najib was shocked. He said he does not know who is putting money into his account and why through Ihsan Perdana. From what I observed he was upset, in fact,” he said.
“I then told Datuk Seri Najib that if I had known it was his personal account, I would have sought his permission first. He also expressed, in his own words, that he had not expected these three transactions to have originated from Ihsan Perdana Sdn Bhd,” he added.
Previously, Dr Shamsul had testified about the RM42 million in Najib’s separate SRC trial, which resulted in the former prime minister’s imprisonment. Court evidence showed that Ihsan Perdana sent the money in three batches to two of Najib’s personal accounts in December 2014 and February 2015.
Dr Shamsul today listed the efforts he said he had made to find out who owned the accounts to which he had sent the RM42 million but stated that the information was not disclosed to him. He added that he had still proceeded with the transfer from Ihsan Perdana, as he was acting on the instructions of the company’s CSR funder, YR1M.
Dr Shamsul also claimed that he had assumed YR1M officials were following instructions from Najib’s then-principal private secretary, Datuk Seri Azlin Alias, as Azlin was a member of YR1M’s board of trustees.
“It was only after speaking with Datuk Seri Najib and observing his reaction that I realised he was completely unaware of these remittances,” he claimed.
Formerly the Umno Sungai Siput division’s Youth chief and chairman of Umno’s international bureau until 2006, Dr Shamsul today said he knew Najib well and had got to know the former minister when the latter was Umno Youth chief.
Dr Shamsul said he was 1MDB executive director in the CSR division from October 2010 to July 25, 2011, and that he referred to this division as Yayasan 1MDB even though there was no entity officially carrying this name.
He explained that he had established Ihsan Perdana under 1MDB’s directive to carry out CSR programmes, adding that it functioned as a contractor for Y1MDB and YR1M.
Dr Shamsul said Ihsan Perdana received RM20 million annually from Y1MDB to do CSR in Malay-majority seats won by Umno or Barisan Nasional and RM20 million annually from YR1M for CSR in BN-won Chinese and Indian-majority seats, but denied this was for political gain or to get advantage in elections and said it was to benefit communities in need.
Among other things, Dr Shamsul denied he had met with Low Taek Jho at the Mayfair Hotel in London in early 2015, or that he had been part of any discussion there about alleged 1MDB money in Najib’s account or the alleged preparation of a purportedly forged Saudi donation letter to Najib at that hotel.
“I was never involved in any such conversation in relation to drafting or procuring letters concerning donations from Saudi Arabia,” he said when disputing prosecution witness Jasmine Loo’s previous testimony in the 1MDB trial about the alleged fabricated donation letter.
Najib’s 1MDB trial before trial judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah resumes tomorrow morning, with Dr Shamsul expected to answer some questions from Najib’s lawyers before being cross-examined by the prosecution.
Earlier today, corporate lawyer Datuk Sreesanthan a/l Eliathamby — who had previously been legal adviser to 1MDB’s predecessor Terengganu Investment Authority — testified briefly as the 13th defence witness in the trial, but refrained from answering certain questions as he was still bound by legal and professional privilege and as 1MDB had decided not to waive the privilege.
When Najib’s lead defence lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah attempted to get Sreesanthan’s opinion on a clause (Article 117) in 1MDB’s company constitution as an expert witness, the judge made a ruling to disallow such attempts, as there would be a conflict of interest since he was still bound by the privilege.
“I can appreciate that you want to treat him as an expert witness ... that can be your right perhaps with any other witness who has not sought privilege. But I think with regard to this witness, I find that with 1MDB very categorically saying they are not waiving the privilege, I think I won’t allow the witness to answer the question.
“But you can call any other witness who is not in conflict in some way as an expert on Article 117, if you can find any. That will be my ruling,” the judge said.
This morning, the prosecution’s deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Akram Gharib asked the High Court to give a “proper warning” to Najib’s lawyers, and said the 1MDB trial should not be brought into the court of public opinion.
Akram said Najib’s lawyers had issued a “one-sided” press statement to the public via Najib’s Facebook page as it included testimony of a defence witness who had yet to be cross-examined by the prosecution, and noted it had attracted hundreds of comments by Facebook users including those that were against the prosecution and the High Court.
Akram argued that the press statement allegedly contained sub judice comments with the intention to prejudice the trial, as it allegedly commented and made conclusions while the trial was still ongoing and while the High Court had yet to decide on the case.
Shafee claimed that the press statement issued by his law firm was stating facts instead of opinions, and promised he would ask his team of lawyers to use the exact words that defence witnesses used and not to paraphrase their court testimony when issuing press statements.
The judge then said lawyers should avoid making press statements about what witnesses said before they have finished testifying, and that statements should be limited to the facts of the case and not go into sub judice matters (such as by making comments or conclusions on evidence that should be decided by the court).
“Can we perhaps ensure there’s no repeat of this?” the judge asked after stressing that he wanted to run the 1MDB trial without too many diversions, later adding: “I think we leave it at that for now, hopefully we don’t have to deal with this again.”
Four months ago, the prosecution had also objected to Shafee’s press conference on the 1MDB trial as it was allegedly sub judice and bordering on contempt of court, and the High Court had at that time told Najib’s lawyers not to make sub judice comments.
