By Clara Chooi
IPOH, Nov 5 — An agent provocateur told the Sessions Court here today that he was paid RM100 per day for helping the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in a sting operation that led to the arrests of two former PKR state executive councillors.
“If I am with them (the targets) for a full day, the payment for each day is RM100. If I am working for a full week for example, then the payment is RM700,” the agent, Mohamad Imran Abdullah told the court.
He added that the daily payment was not inclusive of food and drink and was only paid to him after the arrests were made on August 19 last year.
Mohamad Imran was engaged by the MACC on August 4 last year to act as an agent provocateur in the sting operation which eventually led to the capture of the former state executive councillors, Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu.
Four others were also arrested, including PKR politician Usaili Alias, Perak Development Corporation technician Ruslan Sahat who passed away recently, businessman Fairul Azrim Ismail, and former Perak Tengah district councillor Zul Hassan.
Mohamad Imran, who had refused to reveal the amount two weeks ago, was forced to do so today when Judge Azhaniz Teh Azman Teh made the order upon accepting the submissions made by defense counsel Surjan Singh.
During submissions, Surjan Singh urged Judge Azhaniz Teh to “create history” and compel the witness to reveal the amount as no agent provocateur had ever been made to do so in any court of law before.
“My learned friends and I have not been able to find any authority on the matter. So, Your Honour, you can create history today and make a ruling — let it go to the High Court or the Federal Court if need be,” said Surjan Singh.
When questioned by the Judge why knowledge of how much Mohamad Imran had been paid would be material to the defence’s case, Surjan Singh said:
“Because the case is one of public interest. That is why we need to know how much he was paid to see why he had gone to such length to trap these people. Furthermore, he had admitted he was paid and you (Judge Azhaniz Teh) had asked him to answer but he refused.
“Is it so scandalous or vexatious?”.
The defence counsel also argued that the accused had been victims of an entrapment plan set up by the MACC.
“Your Honour, this is a case of entrapment. How was Mohamad Imran the complainant (against the accused)? Did he go to MACC and tell them that these men had asked him for bribes (before the trap was set)? No.”
Surjan Singh questioned why the MACC had needed to enlist the help of Mohamad Imran as an agent if they had already known a corrupt practice was taking place.
“Simply because there was actually nothing wrong. They hired Mohamad Imran to get him to create such a situation that would implicate these PKR men.
“Look at the light at the end of the tunnel, Your Honour,” he said.
He further submitted that the alleged act of corruption had not taken place first before the MACC laid its trap.
“It is not that the MACC received complaints first that these men took money and only then decided to send an agent provocateur to trap them
“As we know for a fact, there was no project at that stage, and the land (in the said project) had not been alienated to the Perak Tengah district council.
“They (Jamaluddin and Mohd Osman) are lawmakers. We are not dealing with criminals or corrupt officials, so why go all out to entrap them?” he said.
The men had been arrested for allegedly receiving bribes from Mohamad Imran in exchange for helping him obtain a RM180 million housing development project at a piece of land in Seri Iskandar.
Surjan Singh also maintained that Mohamad Imran had targeted the PKR men, especially Jamaluddin, Mohd Osman, and Usaili.
“He wanted to trap these three. And he himself admitted to the court that he was paid so what is wrong with confirming the veracity of his evidence?
“This is not the case of a policeman pulling a car over and asking for a RM100 bribe — it is entrapment,” he emphasised.
Another defence counsel Mohd Asri Othman said that the entrapment served as a catalyst and a motive to catch the accused and the money paid to Mohamad Imran would determine just how hard the latter would work to ensure the arrests were made.
“The more money there is, the harder you work. If the pay is peanuts, you would not work so hard,” he said.
At one juncture, Judge Azhaniz Teh cut in to question the legality of entrapment in Malaysia.
“The question is, is entrapment legal or illegal? It is illegal in the UK and the US,” he said.
MACC prosecution unit head Datuk Abdul Razak Musa then rose and told the court that there was nothing wrong with the employment of an agent provocateur to help the MACC in a case.
“And agents like these get paid — it is no different from how lawyers get paid to do their jobs,” he said.
He denied that there was any entrapment in the case for the arrests of Jamaluddin, Mohd Osman and Usaili had stemmed from the MACC’s case with another accused.
During the earlier hearings, Mohamad Imran had testified that it was Ruslan who had actually been the MACC’s target in the case before the others were implicated.
Abdul Razak also accused the defence panel of seeking the answer to how much the agent was paid in order to defame the MACC as well as Mohamad Imran.
“They have submitted that they could not find any authority on the matter so if they want this question to be answered, then they should find the authority,” he said.
Surjan Singh however rebutted that fact, saying that since there was no authority, the court should set a precedent and create one.
“If there is no authority, let this honourable court create one today. The law is alive — it is not dead, and that is why we need judges and magistrates who can create the authority,” he said.
After the deliberations, Judge Azhaniz Teh said he would allow the question to be asked.
The trial continues tomorrow.
