Lawyer Harvinderjit Singh told High Court judge Muhammad Jamil Hussin that the defence wanted to expunge certain paragraphs in Syed Nasrul Fahmi Syed Mohamad’s witness statement.
“Some of the paragraphs in Nasrul’s witness statement are prejudicial. For example, he gave his opinions on the Income Tax Act and gave his own conclusions to ‘find the accused (Shafee) guilty’.
“The interpretation of the law and finding of facts should be the duty of the court, not the witness,” he said.
Deputy public prosecutor Afzainizam Abdul Aziz, who was taken by surprise by the defence’s move, said the prosecution wanted to deal with the objection.
“They are objecting to 33 of the 51 paragraphs, which is more than half of Nasrul’s statement.
“He is an important prosecution witness and we cannot proceed with the case without calling Nasrul to testify before our MACC (Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission) investigating officer,” he said.
However, Jamil said the court would allow Nasrul to read his witness statement during the next hearing (on Dec 8) before deciding on whether to grant the defence’s application to expunge his statement.
Shafee is standing trial on four counts of money laundering involving a sum of RM9.5 million, purportedly from Najib Razak between Sept 2013 and Feb 2014.
The prosecution said in its opening statement that Shafee concealed the RM9.5 million from the taxman.
It added that it would prove that Shafee also made inaccurate statements to LHDN on why the RM9.5 million was paid.
Earlier today, lawyer and former Malaysian Bar treasurer Ravi Nekoo told the court that in his 26 years of practice, he had not come across lawyers who would bill their clients several years after legal services were rendered.
“In ordinary practice, if a client asks us to do work, the fees would have been agreed upon before we commence work.
“Counsel (Harvinderjit) had asked if I had done a job but only issued the invoice after five years. I don’t know if that is a practice,” he said in response to Harvinderjit’s questions on whether law firms demanded payment from clients years after legal services were completed.
The hearing continues on Dec 8 and 10.