High Time There Was A Full Inquiry Into Apandi Ali

The judge pointed out that the MACC and other task forces had recommended criminal charges or at least an in-depth investigation into the “fantastical donation” and SRC International Sdn Bhd.

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

However, during cross-examination, Apandi admitted that the delegation did not meet nor speak to the alleged donor, testifying that the “Saudi Prince refused to meet anybody”, she said.

She noticed that this was contradictory to his press statement in which Apandi had announced that a delegation had flown to Riyadh and personally met the alleged donor himself.

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 Apandi bend the truth about the meeting and recording [of] the statement by the alleged donor?

“Why would the former 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?

“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.

Azimah further reprimanded Apandi for failing to remember the name of the Saudi royal donor who had allegedly made the donation, which she said was critical information and justified Lim’s grounds for investigating Apandi.

“Although with the 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.”

Our comment

Put ex-AG Apandi under the impartial scrutiny of a court of law and he tends to come off badly. A British High Court judge waived him off with a single but telling word, “discredited”.

Last week, after he had had the cheek to sue a politician who had questioned his handling of the 1MDB affair, a Malaysian judge spelt out in excruciating detail exactly why the term fits.

With regard to the fairy tale ‘donation’ story his ‘Bossku’ Najib employed to explain the arrival of his billion dollar theft from 1MDB into his bank accounts the judge pointed out how he contradicted his own press release in court by admitting investigators had never met the alleged princely Saudi donor as he had claimed, indeed he couldn’t even remember the fellow’s purported name.

Whilst all the other investigation agencies recommended a proper examination of the facts, he simply announced his Bossku was ‘cleared’.

We now discover this was the same toady assigned by Najib to try to get the present Malaysian government to sign a deal with Jho Low to swap remaining stolen cash for the dropping of charges.

A non-corrupted, non-UMNO led administration would of course be calling for a full inquiry into this latest outrageous initiative with a view to tracing where Jho Low is, where he is hiding his remaining money, what plans are afoot to extract that money and for what purpose?

With Najib’s grossly tainted allies back in office no-one should hold their breath however.


Your views are valuable to us, but Sarawak Report kindly requests that comments be deposited in suitable language and do not support racism or violence or we will be forced to withdraw them from the site.