IPOH: In perhaps a first in Malaysian judicial history, an agent provocateur was ordered to disclose how much the then Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) paid him to carry out an anti-graft sting operation. Businessman Mohamad Imran Abdullah, the prosecution’s star witness in the corruption trial of two former PKR state executive councillors, told the Sessions Court on Thursday that he was paid RM100 for each day’s work after Judge Azhaniz Teh Azman Teh allowed the defence’s application to compel him to reveal the information. “According to calculations by ACA enforcement officer Mohd Firdaus Idris, I was to be paid RM100, excluding allowances for food, for a full day’s work. ”The money was only to be paid to me after the job was complete,” Mohamad Imran said in the corruption trial of former PKR state exco members Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu, 57, and Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi, 52. The two, together with former Perak Tengah district councillors Usaili Alias, 56, and Zul Hassan, 45, and businessman Fairul Azrim Ismail, 31, face various corruption charges over a proposed multimillion-ringgit development project in Seri Iskandar. The offences were allegedly committed by them to help Mohamad Imran obtain the project. Further cross-examined by Surjan Singh, Mohamad Imran denied that he would be paid more than the “consolation payment” promised to him, in the event arrests were successfully made. The subject of “consolation payment” had been raised earlier during the course of the corruption trial when Mohamad Imran refused to say how much he had been paid by the then ACA, not known as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). As a result, Judge Azhaniz Teh had ordered both the defence and the prosecution to submit on the matter. Surjan, in his submission Thursday, told the court that there was no authority on the matter. Nevertheless, he said, it was relevant for Mohamad Imran to reveal the amount he had been paid because the 8matter was of public interest. ”This is not a case of a member of the public being stopped at the side of the road and being asked for RM100 but a case that involves entrapment. ”We did not ask, it was the witness who said that he was paid. So what’s wrong if he admits to whether he was paid RM1 or RM1mil,” Surjan said. Defence counsel Mohd Asri Othman submitted that a person would be more motivated to work hard when there was more money paid to him. ”If you’re paid peanuts, then you wouldn’t be working so hard,” he said. MACC head of prosecution Datuk Abdul Razak Musa argued that whether or not Mohamad Imran was paid or if he was paid a little did not make a difference to the case. ”This has no bearing on the case but it is merely aimed at defaming the witness and the ACA. If you want to know, then provide the authority,” Abdul Razak said. Agreeing that there was no authority on the matter, Surjan then said, ”There is no authority and today is a right day to create one. The law is alive, not dead. ”Let us create history. Tuan, create the history. If need be, let it go to the High Court, the Federal Court,” he said. Hearing continues Friday. Source:thestar.com.my
Post a Comment