Oleh: ZEILAH A
MANTAN Pengarah Jabatan Hal Ehwal Anak Negeri Sabah, Haji Mohammad Said Hinayat dalam keterangannya di Mahkamah Tinggi Sandakan mengakui bahawa Kwan Ah Hee ada datang berjumpa beliau pada 30 Oktober 2007 untuk mendapatkan surat pengesahan status Anak Negeri Sabah.
Namun apabila diberitahu Peguam Ansari Abdullah bahawa Kwan Ah Hee telah meninggal dunia pada 8 Ogos 1997, Mohammad Said secara selamba mengatakan bahawa tiada siapa memaklumkan kepada beliau bahawa Kwan Ah Hee telah meninggal dunia seraya memberikan alasan ‘monyet’ bahawa ramai orang yang datang berjumpa beliau pada masa itu dan tidak kenal mana satu Kwan Ah Hee.
“Saya menerima surat daripada Ketua Daerah yang memperakui bahawa Sijil Anak Negeri bagi keempat nama yang disebutkan adalah teratur,” kata Mohammad Said yang menjadikan alasan untuk mengeluarkan surat pengesahan terbabit.
Berikut adalah nota prosiding mahkamah untuk rujukan pembaca;
Examination-In-Chief of PW6
Q152 : What is your present designation with the government ?
Said Hinayat : Under Secretary Chief Minister’s Department.
Q153: Did you serve as director of Native Affairs Sabah in October 2007?
Said Hinayat: Yes.
Q154 : Refer to IDD4. Are you the maker of this document?
Said Hinayat: Yes.
Q155 : Can you inform the Court whether Kwan Ah Hee the 1st name person in the document came to see you on 30/10/2007?
Said Hinayat :I can’t recognize this person because there was a lot of people that came to see me.
Q156: Can you explain to the Court what is the meaning of paragraph 2 of your letter?
Said Hinayat : Paragraph 2 means “the named above” but I don’t recognize them.
Q157 : What was your basis for issuing this letter confirming all the four persons named as natives of Sabah?
Said Hinayat : I received a letter from District Chief stating that the native certificates of the four name above were in order.
Q158 : Did you yourself make any inquiry or investigation as to whether the four persons names in IDD4 were in fact natives of Sabah?
Said Hinayat : No. I fully depend on this letter.
Q159 : Do you have a copy of the letter from the District Chief that you mentioned in your evidence?
Said Hinayat : Yes.
Q160: Do you have the original of this letter?
Said Hinayat : No, only a copy.
Q161 : Can you inform the Court where is the original since this letter was address to you?
Said Hinayat : In the office file.
Mr Ansari: Apply for this letter to be marked as ID since it is not the original neither he is not a maker.
Mr Siew: No Objection
Court: Letter dated 30/10/2007 from Mahkamah Anak Negeri to Pengarah Pejabat Hal Ehwal Anak Negeri Sabah is marked as ID14.
Q162 : Do you know that on 30/10/2007 Kwan Ah Hee was no longer alive?
Said Hinayat : No. Nobody informed me.
No further Question
Mr Siew: Apply for ID14 marked as exhibit.
Court: ID14 converted to exhibit D5.
Mr Cheu: Apply for IDD4 marked as exhibit.
Court: IDD4 converted to exhibit D4.
Cross-examination of PW6 by Puan Suzannah:
Q163 : Refer to D4. Why did you say that persons name above came and see you on 30/10/2007 when Kwan Ah Hee was no longer alive at that time?
Said Hinayat : As I stated earlier I don’t recognize this person and as there was so many people came to see me and nobody told me that this person was no longer alive.
Q164: If you don’t recognize them how you can say that they came and see you?
Said Hinayat : So many people came to see me regarding the same matter so I put in my letter “penama-penama telah datang”.
No further Question.
Cross-examination of PW6 by Puan Zaleha:
Q165 : Refer to D4. Can you tell the Court why did you address the letter to Pengarah Jabatan Tanah dan Ukur, Kota Kinabalu?
Said Hinayat : This letter address to Pengarah Jabatan Tanah dan Ukur because they usually asked for this letter.
Q166 : For what purposes?
Said Hinayat : As mentioned in the letter.
Q167 : It is in respect of paragraph 5 that is the land matter.
Said Hinayat : Yes.
Q168 Earlier on you said that it is because of land matters as stated on paragraph 5. Do you agree with me that it is only for land matters and not for other matters?
Said Hinayat : Yes.
No further Question.
Re examination of PW6
Q169 Can you recall who exactly ask for this letter?
Said Hinayat : I can’t remember but the aim for this letter is regarding the four names above.
Q170 : Can you explain why you specifically address this letter to Director of Land and Survey Department?
Said Hinayat : This letter so obvious address to Director of Land and Survey Department. So many people came and asked for this kind of letter and address to Director of Land and Survey Department as stated in paragraph 5 of this letter.
No further Question.
Court: Witness released.
Mr Ansari: My client the 1st Plaintiff was served with a sealed copy of the order made by the Court of Appeal at 9.00 a.m. this morning. He had earlier instructed Tan Pang Tsen & Co to file application for leave to appeal against the order made by the Court of Appeal on 4/6/2010.
He also had an appeal pending in the Court of Appeal on the refusal by the learned Judicial Commissioner Puan Yew for an injunction to be granted against the 1,2nd and 3rd defendants. He had also file an application for stay in the Court of Appeal on the order granted by the Court of Appeal on 4/6/2010. He had instructed the same firm to file an appeal against your Lordship order to set aside the erinford injunction on Monday 13/7/2010.
He as a director of the 2nd Plaintiff company informed me that most of his workers are under work pass guaranteed by the 2nd Plaintiff. He needs to obtain alternative accommodation to house these people as the 2nd Plaintiff are responsible under the work permit to ensure that the workers remained in the employment of the 2nd Plaintiff for the duration of the work permit.
It would be an offence if he allows the workers to leave the employment of the 2nd Plaintiff without revoking their work permits and sending them back to their country of origin.
He also needs to mobilized the 2nd Plaintiff’s machineries and equipments, food supplies, fuels and other lubricants and related items from the quarters that were built by the 2nd Plaintiff.
In view of all these he asked me to inform the Court that he can only surrendered possession in two weeks time.
I was informed earlier that while I was taking instructions from Mr Hiew that your Lordship had indicated to the parties that the application filed by 1st and 2nd defendants earlier today would be disposed off after completion of the testimony of the subpoena witnesses. I humbly beg the Court for the Plaintiff’s to be allowed to continue with the trial since it had been 11 months that the order was made for retrial by the Court of Appeal.
On behalf of the 5th and 6th Defendants who are in Court because they were dragged in by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants, we also apply for the proceeding to continue since three days has been reserved in this matter and both of them are not parties to the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.
The 5th Defendant is a businessman who was awarded a Justice of Peace by the Head of State and he is living for the past five years under a cloud of allegation of fraud and conspiracy brought by the 1st,2nd and 3rd defendants. He wanted his name to be cleared as soon as possible as his good name and reputation is at stake. These have cost him to suffer undue distress and embarrassment. If your Lordship is minded to adjourn the proceeding by the Plaintiffs than this suit should be separated and the Counterclaim should be tried forthwith.
Mr Tsen: We have been served by the application by the Defendants for stay on the retrial and has not been fixed yet. Pending the disposal of this application the Plaintiffs should be allowed to continue to give evidence so that we can close the Plaintiff’s case by tomorrow. Unless and until the Court makes an order to stay the retrial time should be wasted and this matter should proceed.
Court: Application directions or stay by all the Defendants will be heard at 2.30 p.m.
Signed. YA Tuan Lee Heng Cheong
15/7/2010 @ 12.55 p.m.
(The rest of the page is intentionally left blank)
No comments:
Post a Comment