Court rules Anwar need not testify in RM30m civil suit against businessperson, wife

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim succeeded in his bid to set aside a subpoena compelling him to testify as a plaintiff’s witness in an ongoing RM30 million civil suit investors filed against businessperson Vinod Sekhar and his wife Winny Yeap.

Kuala Lumpur High Court judicial commissioner Adam @ Edward Abdullah, in his decision this morning, allowed Anwar’s application to set aside the order after finding the plaintiffs failed to prove that Anwar is a material witness in their case.

“The plaintiffs say that the applicant (Anwar) is a material witness because the first defendant (Vinod) allegedly used his name to project credibility and to deflect queries.

“In my judgment, that is patently insufficient. A name appearing in an email does not by itself make the bearer of that name a material witness,” he said, ordering the plaintiffs to pay Anwar RM20,000 in costs.

The court, in its finding, held that a subpoena is not an order issued without control, given that the party issuing the subpoena bears the burden to show that the individual named is material to their case.

He added that a witness must be someone who has seen the facts or knows the facts, and that the court must also ensure that the subpoena is not oppressive, an abuse of process or used for a collateral purpose.

“The plaintiffs say the applicant is required because his name was used to perpetrate fraud, but their own witness accepted (during trial) that there was no evidence that his name was used to solicit investments or monies.”

Previously, Malaysiakini reported that Anwar was subpoenaed to appear as a plaintiff’s witness in the case, and that the order was served on him on Jan 21.

On April 15, the prime minister applied to strike it out, denying ties to the businessperson.

The plaintiffs then filed over 400 pieces of documentary evidence in their affidavit in reply to Anwar’s application, which they claimed directly contradict the latter’s denial of ties to Vinod.

Documentary evidence

The court held that evidence relying on photographs, social media posts, public events and alleged associations between the applicant and the first defendant may show acquaintance or association, but does not show the applicant has personal knowledge of pleaded transactions.

“Relationship does not equate with materiality. Neither is it sufficient to say that the applicant should attend (court) merely to confirm that he did not assist the first defendant,” the court added.

A subpoena, the court held, cannot be justified merely because something useful might emerge in cross-examination or because a denial by a potential witness may be rhetorically helpful to one party.

Twelve individuals filed the civil suit against Vinod and his wife in 2024 over alleged misrepresentations, fraud, and breach of contract.

The plaintiffs alleged that Vinod had persuaded them to invest, either personally or through his companies, without disclosing his alleged bankruptcy status.

They also alleged that concerns raised in an email dated Sept 30, 2020, were dismissed by Vinod, who allegedly stated that a person named “Anwar” would resolve the matter, leading them to believe the reference was to the prime minister.

RM30m suit: Plaintiffs file 400 pieces of proof against PM's denial of ties to businessperson

Court sets June 19 to hear Anwar's bid to not testify against businessperson

Anwar denies ties, seeks to strike out subpoena to testify in businessperson's civil suit

Anwar subpoenaed as witness over RM30m suit against businessperson

Businessperson Vinod assaulted and robbed in UK

Witness: Investors sued Vinod for RM30m in 2023 after patience wore out