KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here was told today that former Auditor-General Tan Sri Ambrin Buang should have decided on what information to be included and excluded in the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) final audit report as he was the one having the ultimate authority at the point of time.
Tan Sri Dr Madinah Mohamad (pix), who took over the role from Ambrin in 2017, said it was still the prerogative of Ambrin then to decide whether or not to accept suggestions made by auditee.
The 66-year-old witness said this during cross-examination by counsel Datuk N. Sivananthan who was representing former chief executive officer of 1MDB Arul Kanda Kandasamy in the trial of former premier Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and Arul Kanda for alleged tampering of the 1MDB final audit report.
The 12th prosecution witness who did not involve in the said auditing process in 2015 and 2016, however, agreed that an auditee cannot instruct an auditor to remove certain facts or findings in any audit report.
Sivananthan: Do you agree with me that the auditee, however, may make suggestions as to what information to be included in the audit report based on the document?
Madinah: I agree.
Sivananthan: Ultimately, it is the auditor-general (Ambrin) who should decide what should be in and not be in (in the audit report)?
Madinah: Yes, correct.
Madinah also agreed with Sivananthan that Ambrin would be the correct person to explain what had happened during the 1MDB audit process and what was done or not done, further agreeing that the auditor-general has a lot of discretion to decide what should or should not be done.
Najib, 68, is charged with using his position to order amendments to the 1MDB final audit report before it was presented to the Public Accounts Committee to avoid any action being taken against him, while Arul Kanda, 45, is charged with abetting Najib in making the amendments to the report, to protect Najib from being subjected to action.
The offences were allegedly committed at the Prime Minister’s Department Complex, Federal Government Administrative Centre, Federal Territory of Putrajaya between Feb 22 and 26, 2016.
Both of them were charged under Section 23(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009, which provides for a 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.
The trial before judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan continues on April 20. — Bernama
