A witness was repeatedly asked to clarify his contradictory statements, at the hearing of a RM30mil suit filed by former Internal Security Act (ISA) detainee Abdul Malek Hussin, in the Kuala Lumpur High Court today.

The plaintiff's lawyer R Sivarasa, in cross-examining the respondents' witness Abdul Hamid Jaafar, referred to the witness' testimony on March 17 and to two written statements to the court, which the witness had earlier submitted.

Representing the respondents - the Malaysian government, former inspector general of police Abdul Rahim Noor and a special branch officer ASP Borhan Daud - were federal counsel Morhaji Selamat and Isnan Ishak.

The court was presented with arguments from counsel on both sides who attempted to establish the non-credibility, or otherwise, of the witness.

At the close of the last hearing date in March, Abdul Hamid had admitted making certain contradictory statements in reference to his first written statement, which the court had earlier found needed re-writing, his second written statement and his oral testimony.

"Hamid, do you agree that your version of the events on Sept 25-26, 1998 (Malek's initial detention date), which was delivered in court on March 17, varies from what you swore in your first witness statement?" asked Sivarasa.

At this juncture, Morhaji objected and requested that Sivarasa be more specific in his questioning.

Justice Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus then instructed Sivarasa to refer to specific areas in the statements that were said to be conflicting.

Numerous contradictions

Sivarasa then directed the witness to a statement Hamid made which stated that he brought Malek to a detention room - which the respondents refer to as the 'documentation room' - at the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters, after being detained.

However, in his oral testimony Hamid had claimed that when he arrived at the station, with documents he confiscated from Malek's home, he went directly to the room where the detainee had already been in - with other officers.

Sivarasa's client has previously testified that he was physically and mentally tortured in the 'documentation room'.

The lawyer also brought the court's attention to Hamid having denied hearing screams from the room claiming he was in his office during a specific time. However, in his subsequent testimony, the witness claimed he was in fact inside the room, sorting out Malek's confiscated documents.

After identifying and clarifying a few more contradictions - some of which the witness disagreed were indeed conflicting - Sivarasa reminded Hamid that he had taken an oath to testify truthfully in court.

Counsel : Hamid, do you agree that your testimony on what happened during the plaintiff's detention is incorrect and does not cover the facts of what truly occurred.

Witness : I disagree.

Counsel : Do you agree that what really happened on that night was that special branch officers, including ASP Borhan, beat up and tortured the plaintiff for several hours.

Witness : I disagree.

Counsel : Your testimony is an attempt to conceal, from the court, the true details of what transpired that night.

Witness : I disagree.

Leading witness

Earlier, Sivarasa ticked off federal counsel Isnan who, in objecting to a question by Sivarasa, led the witness to an answer.

"The learned federal counsel should not use his submission to suggest the answer for the witness," said an annoyed Sivarasa.

The plaintiff's lawyer was attempting to have Hamid, who said there were only three officers - including himself - in the documentation room at a certain point, agree that his statement was contradictory to what ASP Borhan had testified.

Borhan had previously said that there were four officers - including himself - who conducted the documentation process. The officers' names were not the same as the ones Hamid mentioned.

"Please tell the court whose version of this is true. ASP Borhan's or yours?," asked Sivarasa with the judge having to repeat the question to Hamid.

"I am not sure whose is correct," conceded a nervous Hamid.

The hearing was postponed to April 22 at 9am shortly after the federal counsel began their witness' re-examination process.

They managed to get Hamid to define certain words he used, such as the 'documentation room', his 'office' and Malek's 'cell', as well as to point them out on a sketch plan layout of the police station.

Malek filed the unprecedented civil suit in 1999, following his release from the ISA, to challenge various forms of torture - such as being stripped naked in an air-conditioned room, physically assaulted to unconsciousness, forced to drink urine and threatened with an HIV/ Aids virus injection - he allegedly experienced during the detention.

He is seeking RM30 million in damages as compensation.