PERBICARAAN ANWAR IBRAHIM - KES LIWAT 2 - 2011 - HARI 45

TRANSKRIP PERBICARAAN DATUK SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM 9 MAC, 2011

Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 3 KL
Di hadapan Yang Arif Dato’ Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah

Pihak-pihak:
PP: Semua hadir
PB: KS, SN, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy
AI hadir.

[9.04]
MY: YA, kes untuk sambung bicara. Pendakwaan akan memanggil saksi kami yang ke 22.

SP22: Ahmad Humaizi bin Awang
SP22 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Melayu.
Ketua Unit Rekod di bahagian Pendaftaran JPJ, Kuala Lumpur, berumur 34 tahun.

EIC SP22 oleh Tuan Hanafiah

Q: Sejak bila Encik bertugas sebagai Ketua Unit Rekod JPJ KL?
A: 2004.

Q: Apakah peranan anda sebagai Ketua Unit Rekod?
A: Bertanggungjawab ke atas rekod-rekod dan fail kenderaan yang di daftarkan di JPJ KL.

Q: Adakah Encik juga bertanggungjawab bagi urusan pengendalian komputer di JPJ KL?
A: Ya.

Q: Komputer tersebut adakah dalam perjalanan penggunaan biasa di JPJ?
A: Ya.

Q: Boleh anda beritahu berkenaan dengan pemilikan dan penggunaan sesuatu kenderaan di Malaysia? Apakah keperluan bagi seseorang yang hendak mengguna atau memiliki sesuatu kenderaan di Malaysia pada

pengetahuan anda?
A: Untuk kenderaan yang digunakan di Malaysia, kenderaan tersebut mestilah dilesenkan di JPJ KL dan apabila dilesenkan, pihak JPJ akan mengeluarkan satu nombor pendaftaran kenderaan.

Q: Nombor pendaftaran kenderaan ini adakah JPJ akan simpan rekod daftar?
A: Ya.

Q: Ada undang-undang yang digunakan untuk JPJ menyimpan rekod daftar kenderaan yang didaftarkan?
A: Ya.

Q: Itu untuk pendaftaran baru?
A: Ya.

Q: Sekiranya sesiapa mahu tukar milik kenderaan tersebut, apa keperluannya?
A: Perlu diisi borang pertukaran hak milik iaitu borang JPJ A3 di antara pemilik lama dan pemilik baru.

Q: Berkenaan dengan nombor pendaftaran kenderaan tersebut, adakah keperluan untuk diperagakan dan dipamerkan pada kenderaan?
A: Benar.

Q: Di bahagian depan dan belakang?
A: Ya.

Q: Semasa Encik bertugas sebagai Ketua Unit Rekod JPJ Kuala Lumpur, adakah Encik boleh akses kepada pendaftaran kereta bagi negeri Selangor dan Kelantan?
A: Ya, untuk makluman, system JPJ boleh akses kepada satu negeri, untuk satu Malaysia.

Q: Ada Encik membawa rekod untuk nombor kenderaan?
A: Ya, saya ada bawa rekod daripada sistem kenderaan.

Q: Boleh rujuk kepada nombor pendaftaran WMK 6?
A: Ya.

Q: Boleh Encik beritahu kepada siapa nombor ini didaftarkan?
A: Berdasarkan rekod JPJ, kenderaan ini didaftarkan atas penama Anwar bin Ibrahim.

Q: Nombor pengenalan beliau?
A: 470810-07-5095.

Q: Apakah jenis kenderaan tersebut?
A: Audi Wald WAA6 (A).

Q: Warna?
A: Biru.

Q: Adakah berlaku pertukaran hak milik selepas didaftarkan? Sebelum itu, bila kenderaan ini didaftarkan?
A: Pada 25.7.2008.

Q: Berlaku pertukaran hak milik selepas didaftarkan?
A: Berdasarkan rekod JPJ, tiada. Hanya seorang penama sahaja.

Q: Kenderaan WMK 6, sebelum itu adakah diberi nomber pendaftaran lain?
A: Sebelum ini, nombor pendaftaran kenderaan ini bernombor WRQ 2741.

Q: Bila pertukaran nombor pendaftaran ini berlaku?
A: Proses pertukaran nombor pendaftaran berlaku pada 25.7.2008.

Q: Jadi, nombor WMK 6 ini sebelum itu didaftarkan ke atas kenderaan jenis apa?
A: Jenis MG Rovers model 75U86A berwarna hitam.

Q: Milik siapa kenderaan ini?
A: Anwar bin Ibrahim.

Q: Ada Encik bawa rekod untuk WPK 5925?
A: Ya.

Q: Siapakah pemilik berdaftar kenderaan tersebut?
A: Mohd Zaki bin Muhammad, no. kad pengenalan: 540903-11-5181.

Q: Bila ia didaftarkan?
A: 10.7.1997

Q: Apakah jenis dan buatan kereta serta warna kereta ini?
A: Fiat Ulysse, warna merah.

Q: Berlaku pertukaran hak milik selepas didaftarkan?
A: Mempunyai beberapa pemilikan sebelum Mohd Zaki iaitu 3 pemilik.

Q: Selepas 10.7.1997?
A: Pada 10.7.1997 dimiliki oleh Encik Zulkifli bin Zainal Abidin sehingga 23.11.1999. Pada 23.11.1999 kenderaan ini dimiliki oleh Encik Zaki bin Mohd.

Q: Ada lagi pertukaran milik selepas itu?
A: Syaridah Hamisah binti Jaafar, bermula pada 11.9.2006.

Q: Ada lagi pertukaran hak milik selepas itu?
A: Pada 20.9.06, kepada pemilik sekarang iaitu Mohd Zaki bin Muhammad.

Q: Ada Encik bawa rekod untuk kenderaan bernombor WND 1173 hari ini?
A: Ada.

Q: Siapa pemilik berdaftar bagi kenderaan tersebut?
A: Malaysian Institute of Economic Research.

Q: Bila didaftar?
A: 28.7.2005

Q: Apakah jenis buatan, model dan warna kenderaan ini?
A: Proton Perdana V6 Automatik, warna maroon.

Q: Selepas itu, ada pertukaran hak milik?
A: Tiada.

Q: Ada Encik bawa rekod untuk WNK6238?
A: Ya. Pemilik berdaftar ialah Omar bin Malek Ali Merican, kad pengenalan 590328-10-6793.

Q: Bilakah ianya didaftarkan?
A: 20.10.2005

Q: Apakah jenis, buatan, model dan warna kenderaan tersebut?
A: Toyota Harrier MCU36(A), warna hitam.

Q: Selepas didaftarkan, ada berlaku pertukaran hak milik?
A: Tiada.

Q: Ada Encik bawa rekod kenderaan WMK5251?
A: Ada. Pemilik berdaftar ialah Chan Wai Hung, nombor kad pengenalan 620403-10-6553.

Q: Bilakah tarikh pendaftaran?
A: 30.12.2004.

Q: Apakah jenis model dan buatan?
A: Buatan BMW, 525 I (A), warna biru.

Q: Adakah berlaku apa-apa pertukaran hak milik selepas ianya didaftarkan?
A: Ada satu pemilikan sebelumnya iaitu [] Bank Malaysian Berhad.

Q: Bila tarikh milikannya?
A: Pada 30.12.2004 sehingga 8.12.2010.

Q: Dan bila didaftar atas nama Chan Wai Hong?
A: Pada 8.12.2010 sehingga sekarang.

Q: Bawa rekod untuk DAE 5?
A: Ada. Pemilik berdaftar adalah Nik Mohd Sidek bin Nik Abu Bakar, kad pengenalan 430325-03-5093.

Q: Bilakah ianya didaftarkan?
A: 17.9.1997.

Q: Buatan dan model?
A: Porsche Boxter berwarna perak.

Q: Adakah berlaku pertukaran hak milik selepas pendaftaran kenderaan ini?
A: Tiada.

Q: Ada bawa rekod untuk kenderaan BHA 5476?
A: Ada. Pemilik berdaftar adalah Ching Thiam Soon. Kad pengenalan 880714-10-5575.

Q: Tarikh pendaftaran kenderaan itu?
A: 12/12/2003

Q: Buatan dan model?
A: Honda Accord 2.4L I-VTEC, berwarna emas.

Q: Apakah berlaku pertukaran hak milik selepas ianya didaftarkan?
A: Terdapat pemilik lain sebelum penama di atas, iaitu di atas nama Nik Mahmud bin Nik Hassan.

Q: Bila kenderaan tersebut didaftarkan atas nama Nik Mahmud?
A: Bermula tarikh 12.12.2003 sehingga 27.12.2010.

Q: Bila ia ditukarkan kepada hak milik Ching Thiam Soon?
A: Kenderaan ini ditukar hak milik kepada Ching Thiam Soon pada 27.12.2010.

Q: Ada berlaku pertukaran hak milik selepas itu?
A: Tiada.

MH: Itu sahaja soalan pihak pendakwa.

KS: Tiada soalan untuk cross.

MY: Seterusnya, pihak pendakwaan akan memanggil Doktor Razuin sebagai SP 23.

SP 23: Doktor Razuin binti Rahimi,
Forensic Pathologist at Hospital Sungai Buluh, age 37 years old.
SP 23 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

Q: What are you at Hospital Sungai Buluh.
A: Forensic pathologist.

Q: When did you join Hospital Sungai Buluh?
A: Since June 2010.

Q: Prior to that?
A: Prior that, I was attached to University Malaya Medical Center and Hospital Kuala Lumpur

Q: Your designation?
A: Master medical officer.

Q: In June 2008, were you at HKL?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell the court what were your duties in HKL in July 2008?
A: I was a medical officer attached to the department of forensic medicine.

Q: What were you do as a medical officer?
A: So we do our core business which is most of the time, post mortem examination.

Q: 28 June, where were you around 6 pm?
A: I was at home.

Q: Were you at that time, received information or anything from the hospital?
A: Yes.

Q: What was informed to you and by whom?
A: I was informed by a medical officer in Emergency Department of HKL about an alleged sodomy case.

Q: Were you told who was involved?
A: At that time, during the telephone call, I was only informed that it involved a well known political figure in the country.

Q: Was any name mentioned then?
A: At that time, no.

Q: Exactly, what time did you received the call?
A: I received the call twice from the emergency. First, around 3.30 p.m, the second one was around 7.30pm.

Q: What was the call at 3.30 pm were about?
A: At that time, they informed me about an alleged sodomy case, however to my understanding at that time, the police report has not being lodged. So my advice to them was to lodge a police report first.

Q: After you have been informed around 7.30 pm, about this case and then a well known personality was involved, then what did you do?
A: I called the specialist in charge which was Dr. Siew Sheue Feng.

Q: After that?
A: He asked me to come to HKL first.

Q: Any particular place in the Hospital he asked you to come to?
A: I went to OSCC at Emergency Department.

Q: Roughly what time did you arrive at OSCC?
A: Approximately at 8.30 p.m.

Q: Upon arrival, did you meet anybody there?
A: Yes, DSP Jude Pereirra.

Q: Can you identify him? Is this DSP Jude that you mentioned just now?
A: Yes.

DSP Jude dicamkan.

Q: Did anything transpired between both of you?
A: Yes, he briefed me about the case.

Q: Roughly what did he brief you?
A: He informed me that this is an alleged sodomy case involving Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan and DSAI.

Q: Was this Saiful present at that time?
A: When DSP Jude briefed me, he wasn’t present.

Q: Did you at any time see him? I mean Saiful?
A: After that, DSP Jude introduced him to me.

Q: After being introduced to Mohd Saiful, what did you do?
A: Then I informed DSP Jude that I will take history from Saiful.

Q: Can you identify him?
A: Yes.

Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan dicamkan.

Q: You said you informed Jude that you want to take the history from Saiful. Did you proceed to do that? Where?
A: Yes, in the OSCC room.

Q: Briefly, what Saiful told you in the course of history taking with regard to this allegation?
A: I was informed that he has been sodomised by DSAI a few times. And the latest incident took place on 26.6.08 at approximately 3.15 pm at Kondominium Desa Damansara.

KS: At this stage, we object to the evidence given in the earlier instance YA. In fact, the report had been expunged with regard to that.
MY: YA, if I may, let the witness say and YA can exclude after that because this is what had been told to her. She cannot change that.

KS: But the word had been expunged and it is admissible. I think that is elementary.
YA: Just expunge the word ‘few times’.
KS: I mean now, YA. Not later.
YA: Yes, it is excluded.

Q: What else he told you? Was he a willing partner?
A: No he was not.

Q: What did he tell you actually? Did he consent to it or what?
A: He said he did not consent to it.

Q: Then? Just tell whatever important that he told you with regard to the allegation.
A: So basically he informed me about the incident that took place on 26.6.2008. So he was [] by DSAI and even though he was unwilling but it still occurred and I asked him about the intercourse basically for i.e. whether

there was penetration, oral sex, lubricant used such things.

Q: What did he tell you? Was there any penetration?
A: Yes there was.

Q: Was there any ejaculation?
A: Yes.

Q: Was there any lubricant used?
A: Yes.

Q: What else?
A: He informed me that DSAI also fondled with his breasts and the event occurred for about half an hour.

Q: Any oral sex?
A: According to Saiful Bukhari, it was attempted but he refused.

Q: How long does this interview last?
A: For about 20 minutes.

Q: What time does it started?
A: Roughly around 9 p.m

Q: At the time when you interviewed Saiful, was Dr. Siew there?
A: No.

Q: Did he come after that?
A: He came in later.

Q: Was he alone when he came?
A: No, he came in with two other specialists, Dr. Mohd Razali and Dr. Khairul Nizam.

Q: And Dr. Razali was?
A: He was a surgeon at HKL.

Q: Dr. Khairul Nizam?
A: Emergency Case specialist.

Q: So by the time they came, was the interview over?
A: Yes.

Q: What did you do after that?
A: I briefed the 3 doctors about the case, and I also showed Dr. Siew on a clinical forensic examination draft.

Q: Can you give more specific answer? Did you wrote down on a blank piece of paper of what? Or form?
A: The pro forma.

Q: Now, when you briefed them (the 3 doctors) about Saiful what he told you, then what took place after that?
A: Then 3 doctors interviewed him again

Q: Were you present?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you hear what he told the doctors?
A: Yes.

Q: Was there any difference from what he told you and what did he tell the doctors?
A: No.

Q: Then after the interview of history taking, what did the doctor do?
A: Then we started with physical examination.

Q: Were you present?
A: Yes.

Q: What was your role in this examination?
A: My role was to assist Dr. Siew in jotting down and taking notes.

Q: Be more specific.
A: I have to take notes of the history, as well as the physical examination findings.

Q: This note of examination that you took down, did you write in the pro forma that you told earlier?
A: No.

Q: Why?
A: That is because initially I filled in pro forma and then when I showed to Dr Siew, he thought that the pro forma was not suitable, and later we proceeded on jot down everything on blank sheet of paper.

Q: So the documentation that you did after the examination was all done on a blank sheet of paper?
A: Yes.

Q: After you did everything, what did you do with this sheet of paper?
A: I handed everything to Dr. Siew.

Q: What about the pro forma?
A: That includes the pro forma.

Q: YA, at this juncture, may this witness be referred to the pro forma, D 28. Can you have a look at this document: page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. In particular the signature in page 6, 5, 3 and the handwriting on top there, and all the

handwriting in this document up to page 6. Whose signatures are those?
A: Mine.

Q: Ok, now look at the handwriting. First at page 3. Can you tell whose handwriting there?
A: It was my handwriting except for the part of the police officer’s name, i/c number and police station.

Q: This is not your handwriting?
A: No. It was DSP Jude’s handwriting.

Q: Now at page 5, [read] whose handwriting is there?
A: Mine.

Q: All this that appeared here that need to be fill and circled, who did all this?
A: I did.

Q: What about page 6, the circle there? And there also employer. Whose handwriting and whose circled the particular answer. Who did that?
A: I did.

Q: So can you confirm that this is the pro forma that you filled in, except for the part filled by Jude that you told the court just now, which was you later handed this form to Dr. Siew?
A: Yes.

Q: I refer you to page 5 now at para 1.5, if force and violence was used, then it was circled no. And then, did she put up resistance, you said yes. Was this given by Saiful during the interview when you asked him regarding

the alleged sodomy?
A: Yes.

Q: Exactly what did he told you?
A: He told me that he was unwilling and his body became tense.

Q: That’s all?
A: Yes.

Q: Now, at para 1.6 under the heading ‘details of the act’, you circled oral attempted, and then the answer you put yes. Can you explain to the court?
A: It means that based on what Saiful told me, oral sex was attempted however it did not happen.

Q: Can you be more specific?
A: According to him, he was asked but he refused.

Q: Now, the next two lines, rectal attempted/performed ejaculation, the answer is yes. So what does it mean?
A: To my understanding, sodomy is anal intercourse. Hence, anatomically speaking, rectum is located above the anus. So this line, the word is confusing because I do not know at that moment in time, whether penetration

did reach rectum. If the word given here is anal attempted or performed, then I would have circled performed.

Q: So now you said as far as you concern there was anal penetration but you are not sure whether or not it reach rectum.
A: Yes.

Q: What about ejaculation?
A: Yes, according to Saiful Bukhari, he ejaculated inside.

Q: So you circled?
A: Ejaculation yes, rectal attempted also yes.

Q: Meaning there was ejaculation?
A: Yes.

Q: Now, under subheading what was used, penis you circled yes, and penetration full. Where did you get this information?
A: From Saiful Bukhari.

Q: And then the rest is what he told you also. Any pain yes, bleeding yes, number of assailant, was any drug used: no, alcohol: no. But there was no mentioned about lubricant? Why? Because the form doesn’t state it?
A: Yes.

KS: YA, my learned friend is leading the witness.
MY: Because she had mentioned about lubricant earlier.

YA: Proceed.
Q: The form didn’t mention about that, any reason?

A: This is supposed to be the medical form for rape victim. That is why after I showed the pro forma to Dr. Siew, and he thought this pro forma is not suitable.

Q: At para 1.7, under the heading ‘identity of the assailant’, it was circled he was known to him. The answer you circled is yes. Ethnic: Malay and relationship: employer. This employer refer to the assailant?
A: Yes.

Q: 1.8 – did she change clothes after the incident, the circle is yes. That was told to you?
A: Yes.

MY: That would be all My Lord.

Cross- examination by Karpal Singh.

Q: Dr. Razuin, you are here to tell the truth. Are you aware that you are here to tell the truth?
A: Yes.

Q: Have you taken the hypocratic oath?
A: Yes.

Q: So, double now?
A: I am sorry, I did not really understand.

Q: Double means, the hypocratic oath plus the oath just now? More so that you have to tell the truth?
A: Yes.

Q: Was any statement taken from you in the course of the investigation taken by the police?
A: Yes

Q: When was it?
A: I couldn’t recall now.

Q: Taken by Supt. Jude?
A: Yes.

Q: Did Supt. Jude gone through the statement with you lately?
A: No.

Q: He did not go through with this statement with you?
A: No.

Q: No [] regarding your statement?
A: Not lately.

Q: All right, when was it then?
A: It was when he came to my hometown to get my statement.

Q: That was the first time?
A: That was the second time.

Q: When was the second time and first time?
A: The first statement is Jan 2010, the second one was around 3 weeks ago, I am still on my confinement.

Q: So 3 weeks ago your statement was taken?
A: Yes.

Q: Did he told you why he wanted to take second statement?
A: Yes, it was regarding the pro forma.

Q: You said nothing about the pro forma in the first statement?
A: I did not say anything about the pro forma in the first statement.

Q: This pro forma was for what purpose?
A: This pro forma was actually for clinical forensic cases.

Q: For rape, and none for sodomy?
A: At that time, the HKL forensic department does not have pro forma for sodomy.

Q: You are responsible for everything filled in here isn’t it?
A: Yes.

Q: You signed on most of the pages?
A: Yes.

Q: And you personally filled up the form?
A: Yes.

Q: Let me take you to page 5. On top of the page, you put there alleged sodomy?
A: Yes.

Q: 1.6, oral attempted. Whether in English language it means oral sexual attempted?
A: Yes.

Q: Rectal attempted in normal term would mean sodomy isn’t it?
A: Normal term will be anal sex.

Q: Rectal sex would amount to sodomy?
A: I don’t agree.

Q: What is sodomy?
A: Sodomy to my understanding is anal intercourse.

Q: Slightest penetration on the rectal would be anal intercourse isn’t it? Slightest penetration would be rape isn’t it?
A: Slightest penetration through the anus would be sodomy.

Q: Rectal would be sodomy in normal term?
A: I still do not agree.

Q: What is rectum? Rectum is not part of the anus?
A: No.

Q: What is the difference between rectum and anus?
A: Anus situated below. Rectum is above the anus.

Q: So sodomy would be an introduction of [] to the anus. To get to the anus we must go through the rectum?
A: Yes.

Q: So that would be sodomy isn’t it? You are here to tell the truth. That would amount to anal intercourse? English language?

YA: But here it doesn’t talk about anus, it talks about rectal.
KS: Yes, but she said rectum is part on the above of the anus.
MY: Leave this to submission.
KS: No, I’m asking YA. This is an English language.
YA: We are not here to learn English.
KS: But whatever written here is in English. Therefore she must answer the question.

Q: All right, rectum is above the anus?
A: Yes.

Q: For sodomy, you must go through the anus?
A: You have to go through the anus but not necessarily to reach the rectum.

Q: But it will still be a sodomy?
A: Yes.

Q: What you stated is rectal attempted?
A: Yes.

Q: Was there any bleeding?
A: According to Saiful Bukhari, there was bleeding for the first and second time.

MY: I thought they don’t want this evidence?
YA: But they want it.
KS: I’m asking before it is stated here.

Q: On 28, but not 26th?
A: Yes.

Q: There is not for the second time?
A: YA, I will like to explain or elaborate a little about the form.

YA: Takpe you can elaborate later when the needs arrived. You will be question by DPP if they think that it is necessary. But now, just answer what Mr. Karpal ask you.

Q: So this was on 28th?
A: I filled the form on 28th.

Q: He said there was bleeding on 26th?
A: No.

Q: He didn’t say that there is bleeding on 26th?
A: According to the history given…

Q: There was no bleeding on 26th?
A: There was no bleeding on the 26th…

KS: That would be all, YA.

MY: I have no re. May this witness be release.
MY: YA, saksi pendakwaan yang ke 24 ialah Encik Ibrahim bin Yaakob.

SP24: Encik Ibrahim bin Yaakob
Chief staff of DSAI’s office, age: 59 years old.
SP24 angkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

Q: You are the Chief of Staff of DSAI?
A: Yes.

Q: In 2008, you were also the Chief of Staff?
A: Yes.

Q: Where was your office then on June 2008?
A: Section 16 PJ.

Q: In June 2008, did you have an employee by the name of Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan?
A: He is not an employee, he was a temporary volunteer.

Q: He’s not officially employed, but he worked in the office?
A: Yes.

Q: What were his duties then?
A: He was a general office worker.

Q: So what did he do?
A: Well I’d send him on errands. That’s about it lah.

Q: []
A: Not really.

Q: Other than you, were he get instruction from anybody else?
A: No, he has to take instruction from me.

Q: If somebody else gives instruction to Saiful, would you know?
A: Yes, I will know.

Q: If DSAI gave instruction to him?
A: Usually DSAI would CC to me.

Q: If he gave direct oral instruction, would you know?
A: Usually he would SMS or e mail me.

Q: Can you identify Saiful, this is just for the sake of formality.
A: Yes.

Saiful Bukhari dicamkan.

Q: On the 26th of June, were you working at the office at Sec 16?
A: Yes.

Q: What about Saiful?
A: Yes he came in.

Q: What about DSAI?
A: Dato’ Seri came in earlier.

Q: That day, did DSAI had any meeting?
A: Yes. The meeting was held at the apartment of Hasanuddin, in Damansara. I know where it is, but I can’t tell the address.

Q: Do you know what kind of meeting?
A: Luncheon talks with fellow mates together with Prof. Arif.

Q: Now, you remember what time he left for the meeting?
A: Around 11.45a.m to 12 pm.

Q: That day, after DSAI left, did he call you about anything?
A: Yes, he called around 12.15-12.30, to say that he left an envelope on his table.

Q: And he needed that for the meeting?
A: Yes.

Q: So what did you do?
A: I was quite busy, so the only person in the office was Saiful, and I said to him please deliver this thing to DSAI.

Q: Did Saiful carry out your instruction?
A: As far as I concern, he left the office, yes with the envelope.

Q: Was the envelope carried by him just like that, or he put in any bag?
A: I gave to him in the envelope, where he put it, I’m not sure.

Q: Did you know how he delivered the documents to DSAI?
A: He drove.

Q: Did you know what car that he drove?
A: I don’t know what model, but it is MPV, color maroon.

Q: Was it his car?
A: I believe no.

Q: Now, is Saiful still working at the office today?
A: No, he left, he tendered his letter on 27th if I’m not mistaken, through email.

Q: Did he give reasons why he wants to quit?
A: Yes, actually he e-mailed to Dato’ Seri, and Dato’ Seri ‘cc’ to me. He said he was not adequate and cannot perform the duties.

Q: Upon receiving this thing, was there any attempt make to ask him to stay?
A: Well, the thing is he said he wanted to leave because he wants to be a pilot, and since he was willing to leave, so be it. So there was no attempt made to make him stay.

MY: YA, that would be all.
KS: No question for cross.

MY: YA, I’ll be calling the IO next. But before that, can I ask the court to stand down for a while. I think both of us would like to see YA in chamber.
[10.16 a.m] Stand down.
[10.19 a.m] Kedua-dua pihak berjumpa YA dalam chamber.
[10.28 a.m] Kedua-dua pihak keluar dari chamber.
(Kes akan disambung pada pukul 9.00 pagi keesokan harinya untuk keterangan saksi pendakwaan ke 25, DSP Jude Pereira.)