KOTA KINABALU: A communication interception processing staff of the Special Branch in Bukit Aman had to listen to phone conversations involving specific targets many times, the High Court, here, heard yesterday.
The witness, who was testifying as a protected witness in a hearing on the armed intrusion case in Lahad Datu, said this was to enable the witness to recognise the target’s voice in future intercepted telephone conversations.
“I would hear the conversation many times until I could recognise the target’s voice.
“I would also know that the person in the phone conversation was the target from the intonation of the target’s voice,” said the witness via a court interpreter.
The witness, who listened to and translated telephone conversations in the Suluk language, also said there were different and unique styles in the way a person spoke Suluk.
The protected witness was testifying in the trial of 30 individuals linked to the intrusion by Sulu gunmen at Kampung Tanduo in February 2013.
The witness said a target was able to be identified in the phone conversations as he or she would make an introduction to the person on the other line.
To a question by deputy public prosecutor Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar, the witness said the communication interception unit’s coordinating officer, ASP Muhammad Fauzairi Jaidin, would identify the security aspects of the transcribed and translated phone conversations.
Earlier, the prosecution told the court that they requested to call eight protected witnesses.
Datuk Abdul Wahab Mohamed, who leads the prosecution team, said the prosecution would adopt Section 14 of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) in which only the presiding judge, the prosecution and the court interpreter would hear the protected witness’ voice.
“The witness will only be visible to Your Lordship. The testimony of the protected witness will then be deduced in writing for the benefit of cross- examination by the defence,” he said.
Counsel Majnah Abdillah said the defence would not object to the prosecution’s request if any of the protected witnesses feared his or her voice would be recognised.
Justice Stephen Chung said he had only approved for the first protected witness to testify in the trial and that he would decide on the other seven after holding an inquiry with each of them.
He said he would personally interview each of the witnesses to determine that the witnesses needed their identities to be protected.
He also said that the first witness had not told him that the witness feared his or her voice would be recognised by anyone.
“The witness told me that if the witness was recognised or identified by any of the accused persons or if the witness’ identity was exposed, then the witness feared that his or her life would be at risk,” he said.
Although the second part of Section 14 (3) of SOSMA was not fulfilled following the inquiry, in which the witness did not
express fear that his or her voice would be recognisable, Chung decided that the testimony of the first accused would only be relayed through the court interpreter.
In the dock are 27 Filipinos and three local residents who are facing one to multiple charges of being members of a terrorist group and waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
They are also alleged to have recruited members for a terrorist group or wilfully harboured individuals they knew to be members of a terrorist group.
The offences were allegedly committed between Feb 12 and April 10, 2013.
The hearing at the Sabah Prisons Department continues today. — Bernama