KUALA LUMPUR — Former Auditor-General Tan Sri Ambrin Buang (pic) told the High Court here today that he was frustrated with questions raised over the finalisation of the 1Malaysia Development Berhad audit report that was prepared by the National Audit Department (NAD) in 2016.
Ambrin, 70, said, he felt frustration when he attended the Feb 24, 2016 coordination meeting which took place at former Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Dr Ali Hamsa’s office.
“I felt so frustrated for so many reasons. While in the meeting room, there were a lot of questions about our audit report on 1MDB at that time being finalised.
“We were prepared to defend our initial report at the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) hearing on 1MDB.”
The septuagenarian said this during the examination-in-chief by lead prosecutor Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram on the sixth day of the trial of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and former 1MDB chief executive officer Arul Kanda Kandasamy on alleged tampering of the 1MDB final audit report.
The sixth prosecution witness also said that the NAD team was unhappy to remove the issues from the 1MDB final audit report as they spent a lot of time hunting for the required information and had even been generous with 1MDB in giving it time to respond to queries by the NAD in preparing the report.
“The other frustration was that the people at the meeting sometimes did not understand the role of the NAD. Actually, NAD looks at things based on facts and these facts must be verified by supporting documents,” he said.
Earlier, an audio recording of the Feb 24, 2016 meeting involving former top government officials, including the then chief secretary to the government, auditor-general and former 1MDB chief executive officer discussing the sovereign wealth fund’s final audit report was played in court today.
To a question based on the content of the audio recording, the witness said the former chief secretary to the government had told that the content of the audit report on 1MDB could tarnish the name of the prime minister (Najib).
Sri Ram: According to the transcript of the recording…”kalau ada complaint, susah untuk kita defend Najib. His name will be tarnished…it will impact…How do you understand this paragraph?
Ambrin: The government was worried about the content of our audit report and it needed to be amended. The government was also worried that the report would be spun by the opposition.
Sri Ram: This was a specific statement of Ali, on behalf of the government. Whose name actually he was protecting?
Ambrin: PM Najib.
When asked whether he was worried about the report, Ambrin said he was not worried about the report, and was ready to defend the NAD’s findings on 1MDB before the PAC hearing.
Najib is represented by Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, while Arul Kanda is represented by counsel Datuk N. Sivananthan.
Najib was charged with using his position to order amendments to the 1MDB final audit report before it was tabled to the PAC to avoid any action against him.
He was charged, in his capacity as a public officer, which was as prime minister, with using the position to obtain gratification for himself, which was to evade disciplinary, civil or criminal action against him in connection with 1MDB, by ordering alterations to the 1MDB final audit report before it was finalised and tabled to the PAC, where he directly had interest in.
Najib is accused of committing the offence at the Prime Minister’s Department Complex, Federal Government’s Administrative Centre, the Federal Territory of Putrajaya between Feb 22 and 26, 2016. The charge is under Section 23(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009 which carries a maximum jail term of up to 20 years and a fine of no less than five times the amount of gratification or RM10,000, whichever is higher, upon conviction.
Arul Kanda was charged with abetting Najib in making amendments to the report to protect Najib from being subjected to disciplinary, civil or criminal action in connection with 1MDB, at the same place and time and in accordance with Section 28 (1) (c) of the MACC Act 2009 read with Section 23 (1) & 24 (1) of the same Act which provides for similar punishment, if found guilty.
The trial before Judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan continues on Jan 9, next year.
— BERNAMA
