1MDB AUDIT TRIAL | The issue of a National Audit Department (NAD) officer’s datukship was raised during the 1MDB audit report trial of Najib Abdul Razak today.

Lead defence counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah questioned the title awarded to Nor Salwani Muhammad, who received the award after testifying in the former prime minister’s trial.

In previous proceedings in November 2019, NAD's director (Governance Sector) Nor Salwani gained public recognition after she testified that she saved the original audit report on the scandal-hit 1MDB. She testified having done so by preventing the report with the watermark “9” from being destroyed.

She also testified to have kept a recording of a meeting in which it was allegedly decided that amendments would be made to 1MDB's final audit report.

The crux of the prosecution’s case hinged on what allegedly transpired during a meeting on Feb 24, 2016, involving representatives from 1MDB, the NAD, the Treasury, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), and the Prime Minister’s Office.

It was alleged that during this meeting, a decision was made to amend the 1MDB audit report.

During the Federal Territory Day on Feb 1 last year, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah conferred a datukship on Nor Salwani.

Then federal territories minister Khalid Samad congratulated Nor Salwani on her title, saying that “civil servants cannot protect public officers or ministers because (they) hold a responsibility to defend the interests of the nation and its people.

"What Salwani did must be exalted, and that is why we agreed to give her the title," he told reporters in Kuala Lumpur at the time. 

Former federal territories minister Khalid Samad

A short while after Feb 1 last year, the Pakatan Harapan administration was toppled through the controversial Sheraton Move, leading to the emergence of the present Perikatan Nasional government.

During cross-examination before the Kuala Lumpur High Court today, Shafee questioned Nor Salwani on whether she agreed with Khalid’s statement following her datukship award.

Shafee: Regarding the minister’s statement, what do you think?

Nor Salwani: I respect the minister’s views. However, based on what transpired, my nomination (for the award) took place before the minister gave the views.

The seventh prosecution witness explained that she was nominated for the award based on her long service at the NAD, among others.

Judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan then reminded the lawyer not to dwell on that line of questioning for too long.

Meanwhile, later, during re-examination by DPP Gopal Sri Ram, Nor Salwani testified that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) would have received the audit report with the watermark “9” if not for the meeting on Feb 24, 2016.

Sri Ram: If not for the Feb 24 meeting, which report would have gone to the PAC?

Nor Salwani: If there had not been a meeting on Feb 24, report (watermarked) “9”, which is the final audit report, would have been tabled before the PAC.

In proceedings on Aug 24 last year, former auditor-general Ambrin Buang, who was Nor Salwani’s superior, testified that the 1MDB audit report with watermark “9” would have gone to the PAC if it were not for the meeting on Feb 24, 2016.

Towards the end of proceedings today, Sri Ram informed the court that another six witnesses are set to take the stand for the prosecution.

The trial will resume on Aug 11. This is due to Najib’s legal team needing to prepare and submit his separate appeal at the Court of Appeal in April.

The said appeal is in relation to Najib seeking to set aside his conviction and sentencing in the RM42 million SRC International corruption case.

For the current trial before Zaini, Najib is charged with using his position to order amendments to the sovereign wealth fund's final audit report before it was presented to the PAC, in order to prevent any action against him.

Co-accused and former 1MDB CEO Arul Kanda Kandasamy was charged with abetting Najib in making the amendments.

The charges are framed under Section 23 (1) of the MACC Act 2009, which specifies 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.