Apandi kalah saman kat Kit siang : Penghakiman tertulis - Apandi kantoi temberang

sam1528

Versi BM belum keluar lagi


Jadik konfom lah donation tok arab ni hanya fantasi Pok Jib(yg kalah rayuan tu) aje yang disokong oleh macai2

Sumber :

Judge: Apandi seemed disinterested and self contradictory when quizzed about Saudi donation
Hafiz Yatim/theedgemarkets.com
July 22, 2022 19:45 pm +08

Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali (The Edge filepix)

[url=]-A[/url] [url=]+A[/url]



KUALA LUMPUR (July 22): Former attorney-general Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali seemed disinterested and at times self contradictory when testifying in the RM10 million defamation suit he filed against DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang, the High Court noted.

Justice Datuk Azimah Omar, who had dismissed the suit, described in her 100-page judgement released on Thursday (July 21) that it was most telling and revealing evidence that Apandi overtly showed disinterest and indifference to elementary rule of law and even common sense.

The court noticed this when Apandi was questioned continuously by Lim's lawyers over absolving Datuk Seri Najib Razak by accepting the argument that the amount of more than RM2.6 billion that the former prime minister received was from a Saudi royalty.

“Although with utmost respect, this court is pressed to express its disdain to the sordid extent of the plaintiff's self-contradictory testimony, evasiveness and outright untruth.

“It is not exactly rocket-science to appreciate the issue of the RM2.6 billion (which Apandi had declared as donation) would be the core and fulcrum to his very own case swings and tilts by. It would be a grave remiss if the plaintiff were to avail himself to this court, without being candid and without being fully equipped to the brim to justify his magnanimous decision to prefer the donation narrative to exonerate Najib,” the judge said.

Apandi had sued Lim for defamation over an article published on his blog titled “Dangerous fallacy to think Malaysia’s on the road to integrity” that was published in 2019.

Touching on Apandi's press conference on Jan 26, 2016, where the former attorney-general accepted the donation narrative and absolved Najib, Justice Azimah pointed out that Apandi seemed to have contradicted himself when cross-examined by Lim's lawyers.

She said that it was well known in the public domain that the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) and other task forces had recommended criminal charges or at least in-depth investigation into the “fantastical donation” and the SRC International Sdn Bhd monies.

Apandi had said that the MACC itself had met and recorded statements from the donors, she noted.

However, Justice Azimah noticed that when cross-examined over the press statement in which Apandi brazenly announced that a delegation had flown to Riyadh and personally met the alleged donor himself, the former attorney-general seemed to have contradicted and admitted that the delegation did not meet nor speak to the donor.

This was evident in Apandi's testimony when he testified that the "Saudi Prince refused to meet anybody”.

‘It was a total contradiction’
This, Justice Azimah noted, is one of the grounds that Lim had suggested that Apandi should be investigated for absolving Najib and covering up the scandal in 2015.

“The contradiction is not merely an error but instead a total contradiction. It is indeed suspicious and reasonable to ponder the necessity to be deceptive about the critical proof of the alleged donation by the Saudi royal family.

“Why would the AG bend the truth about the meeting and recording [of] the statement by the alleged donor? Why would the AG declare to the world that the delegation met the donor (and obtained confirmation from the donor), while it was well within his knowledge that his delegation did not even speak or meet with the fabled donor,” she asked.

“The court is utterly confounded by the plaintiff's testimony admitting to adopting the donation narrative as a whole, although in gross absence of direct evidence and in preference to the delegation's hearsay evidence. It is right there that Apandi's own testimony exhibited a plain, disinterested, evasive and disassociated attitude to investigate the donation further,” she said.

The judge also admonished Apandi for not even remembering the name of the purported Saudi royal donor who allegedly made the donation.

This, she stressed, was critical information and justified Lim's imputation (in his statement) that Apandi should be investigated.

The judge also pointed to the judgement written by Justice Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali in convicting Najib and disregarding the Arab donation argument, which decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

“The court is mindful of those findings and do not intend to re-litigate these facts but it is well-within this court's jurisdiction to appreciate and consider these facts,” she added.

Justice Azimah also pointed to former MACC panel member Datuk Lim Chee Wee's testimony that the MACC wanted to investigate further but Apandi had said no.
The court also questioned Apandi's move to close the investigation papers by citing no further action (NFA) after the infamous press conference, when the former attorney-general himself said he did not intend to bar any further investigation from the agencies.

“The court is inclined to agree that NFA means Apandi had closed investigations. How can the plaintiff insist that the investigations are closed when he has already come to the conclusion that Najib has done no wrong and is receiving the ‘fantastical’ donation narrative,” she added.

“His (Apandi's) own witness had testified that the plaintiff has insisted on concluding investigations, although the task force recommended continued investigations,” she added.

Justice Azimah concluded after highlighting other factors that Apandi had failed to prove his claim of defamation on a balance of probabilities and the court had accepted Lim's defence of qualified privilege, justification with regard to the case.

In dismissing the suit, Justice Azimah ordered Apandi to pay RM80,000 in costs. Apandi had indicated that he is appealing the High Court decision.

Read the full judgement.

ekod79

boleh rayu lg ka mcm bos die?

pyropura

Berpuluh2 dah politisi Umno Pas kalah saman dgn. DAP. Sayangnya masih ramai Melayu bodo prrcaya pitnah2 Umno. Demi duit 50ringek & sekampit beras

pyropura

Berpuluh2 dah politisi Umno Pas kalah saman dgn. DAP. Sayangnya masih ramai Melayu bodo prrcaya pitnah2 Umno. Demi duit 50ringek & sekampit beras

sam1528

ekod79 replied at 23-7-2022 02:06 PM
boleh rayu lg ka mcm bos die?

Dah fail rayuan pon

Bekas Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali, memfailkan rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang menolak saman fitnah RM10 juta yang difailkan beliau terhadap Lim Kit Siang.

  Peguam M Visvanathan yang mewakili Mohamed Apandi ketika dihubungi berkata, notis rayuan difailkan pada 24 Mei lalu.

Aku rasa besar impak kes ni kat rayuan Pok Jib(yg kalah rayuan tu) tak lama lagi kat Mahkamah Persekutuan

AG masa tersebut (Apandi) dah mengaku tak pernah jumpa & tak pernah bercakap pon dengan kononnya Raja/Putera tok arab yang kononnya derma tu

fortiori13

ekod79 replied at 23-7-2022 06:06 AM
boleh rayu lg ka mcm bos die?

Boleh ja bang, ada 2 peluang dia leh merayu, satu ke mahkamah rayuan, satu ke mahkamah persekutuan (kalau dia kalah gak kat mahkamah rayuan)....

Decaffeinated

ekod79 replied at 23-7-2022 02:06 PM
boleh rayu lg ka mcm bos die?

In dismissing the suit, Justice Azimah ordered Apandi to pay RM80,000 in costs. Apandi had indicated that he is appealing the High Court decision.

Tak kan seorang AG tak tau.

Orix

tgok muka pun tahu penyangak

sam1528

Versi BM

Sumber

Hakim: Apandi nampak tak berminat, beri kenyataan bertentangan isu 'derma' RM2.6b

Diterbitkan:  Jul 23, 2022 11:08 AM
⋅
Dikemaskini:  12:04 PM



Mahkamah mendapati bekas peguam negara Mohamed Apandi Ali kelihatan tidak berminat dan adakala memberi kenyataan bertentangan dalam keterangannya untuk saman fitnah terhadap Lim Kit Siang.

Dalam penghakiman sebanyak 100 halaman yang dikeluarkan Khamis lalu, Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur menyatakan amat jelas bahawa Apandi menunjukkan sikap tidak berminat dan tidak kisah terhadap kedaulatan undang-undang yang asas dan malah akal yang wajar (common sense).

Perkara itu dilihat hakim Azimah Omar ketika Apandi berulang kali disoal oleh peguam Lim berhubung tindakan membersihkan Najib Razak daripada kesalahan, dengan menerima hujah yang wang RM2.6 bilion yang diterima bekas perdana menteri itu adalah daripada kerabat diraja Arab Saudi.

"Walaupun dengan penuh hormat, mahkamah perlu menyatakan rasa cemuh terhadap keterangan bertentangan oleh plaintif, sikap mengelak dan kenyataan tidak benar.

"Ia bukanlah sains roket untuk memahami isu RM2.6 bilion (yang diisytihar Apandi sebagai derma) adalah teras kepada kesnya sendiri.

"Ia satu kelalaian besar jika plaintif menggunakan kesempatan di mahkamah, tanpa benar-benar berterus-terang dan bersedia sepenuhnya untuk menjustifikasikan keputusannya memilih naratif derma untuk membebaskan Najib," kata hakim seperti dipetik The Edge.

Dalam penghakimannya, Azimah juga berkata Apandi juga memberi keterangan bertentangan dengan kenyataan sebelumnya ketika ditanya peguam berkenaan sidang medianya pada 2016, di mana dia menerima naratif derma dan membersihkan Najib daripada kesalahan.

Azimah membangkitkan yang SPRM dan pasukan petugas lain telah mengesyorkan pendakwaan jenayah dibuat, atau sekurang-kurangnya siasatan medalam terhadap "derma cukup besar" dan SRC International Sdn Bhd.

Dia juga membangkitkan yang Apandi telah berkata bahawa SPRM sendiri telah berjumpa dan merakam kenyataan pihak yang memberi derma itu.

‘Kenapa Apandi berkata tidak benar?’

Namun, ketika pemeriksaan balas, Apandi mengakui bahawa delegasi SPRM tidak berjumpa mahupun bercakap dengan pihak yang didakwa sebagai penderma, dengan berkata "putera raja Aran Saudi enggan berjumpa sesiapa", katanya.

Azimah berkata ia bertentangan dengan kenyataannya ketika sidang media tersebut, di mana dia mengumumkan delegasi telah pergi ke Riyadh dan bertemu dengan pihak yang dikatakan penderma.

"Kenapa Apandi berkata tidak benar tentang pertemuan dan rakaman keterangan oleh pihak didakwa sebagai penderma?

"Mengapa bekas peguam negara mengisytiharkan kepada dunia yang delegasi bertemu penderma (dan mendapatkan pengesahan daripadanya), walaupun dia tahu yang delegasinya tidak bertemu atau bercakap pun dengan (penderma)?

"Mahkamah benar-benar bingung dengan keterangan plaintif yang mengakui mengambil naratif derma secara keseluruhannya, walaupun tanpa bukti langsung dan lebih cenderung kepada bukti khabar angin delegas.

"Di situ jelas keterangan Apandi sendiri menunjukkan sikap tidak berminat, mengelak dan berlepas diri (disassociate) untuk menyiasat derma dengan lebih lanjut," katanya lagi.

Azimah juga menegur Apandi kerana gagal mengingati nama individu dari keluarga diraja Saudi yang didakwa membuat derma tersebut, yang menurutnya adalah maklumat penting dan mengabsahkan kenyataan yang dibuat Lim terhadapnya.

Pada 23 Mei lalu, Mahkamah Tinggi menolak saman sivil tersebut, memutuskan Lim mempunyai keabsahan dalam kenyataannya menggesa Apandi menjelaskan mengapa dia membersihkan Najib daripada kesalahan berkaitan 1MDB pada 2016.

'Lim ada justifikasi'

Saman Apandi berhubung artikel bertajuk "Dangerous fallacy to think Malaysia’s on the road to integrity" yang diterbitkan Lim di blognya pada 2019.

Azimah berkata Lim ada justifikasi untuk membangkitkan isu tersebut, terutama susulan sabitan terhadap Najib dalam kes rasuah RM42 juta SRC International.
Mahkamah ketika itu mengarahkan Apandi membayar RM80,000 sebagai ganti rugi kos kepada Lim.



Menyentuh penghakiman terhadap sabitan Najib pada 2020, Azimah berkata dia tidak berhasrat untuk membuat litigasi semula ke atas fakta kes tersebut.
"Tetapi ia di bawah kuasa mahkamah ini untuk mengambil kira fakta-fakta ini," katanya.

Azimah juga mempersoalkan keputusan Apandi untuk mengklasifikasikan kertas siasatan terhadap Najib sebagai tiada tindakan lanjut (NFA), susulan sidang medianya di mana dia mengumumkan dia tidak berhasrat menghalang sebarang siasatan lanjut daripada mana-mana agensi.

"Mahkamah cenderung untuk bersetuju bahawa NFA bermakna Apandi telah menutup siasatan. Bagaimana dia boleh menegaskan yang siasatan ditutup apabila dia sudah mendapat kesimpulan yang Najib tidak melakukan kesalahan dan menerima naratif derma?

"Saksinya (Apandi) sendiri memberi keterangan yang plaintif bertegas untuk menamatkan siasatan, walaupun pasukan petugas mencadangkan siasatan diteruskan," katanya lagi.

Pada 5 Julai 2019, Apandi memfailkan saman sivil terhadap Lim atas dakwaan menulis artikel berunsur fitnah.

Dia mendakwa artikel itu antara lain membayangkan dia terlibat dengan skandal 1MDB, seorang individu yang tiada integriti dan moral, tidak beretika, dan menyalahgunakan kuasa ketika menjadi peguam negara.

[Baca berita asal]

Baca penghakiman penuh di sini.

sam1528

Semasa perbicaraan , Apandi tak mampu kawal perasaan

Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali gagal mengawal perasaan dan menangis ketika memberi keterangan pada perbicaraan kes saman beliau terhadap Penasihat DAP, Lim Kit Siang yang didakwa memfitnahnya dalam satu artikel berhubung skandal 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) di Mahkamah Tinggi di sini pada Rabu.

"Itulah pengorbanan yang saya lakukan apabila saya diberi tugas sebagai AG dan jawatan AG bukan jawatan yang berpencen. Ia adalah jawatan kontrak.

"Terima kasih kerana membenarkan saya meluahkan semua ini. Saya pendam perkara ini, orang ramai mengutuk saya. Saya minta maaf, saya tak dapat teruskan," kata beliau dengan air mata bercucuran di pipi sambil ditenangkan peguamnya.