KOTA KINABALU: The High Court here yesterday heard that a legal officer of the Attorney-General of Chambers (AGC) was not informed that communication interceptions on a phone number of an accused, who faces charges of committing terrorism acts, had been performed earlier before a verbal consent had been asked from him.
Deputy head of the AGC’s Prosecution Division, Datuk Mohamed Hanafiah Zakaria, told Justice Stephen Chung that the communication interceptions on the phone number which allegedly belonged to the accused, Salib Akhmad Emali, should have been applied for using a different form as the interception had commenced before the verbal consent had been asked for.
Under cross-examination by Philippines Government-assigned counsel Datuk N. Sivananthan, the witness testified that if the interception had been performed earlier before the verbal consent had been asked for they should have used Section 6 (3) of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (SOSMA) 2012 to deal with that situation.
However, the witness further testified that he never received any application under Section 6 (3) of the SOSMA.
Sivananthan: Do you agree with me that if you knew the communication interceptions had already started, you would have advised ACP Yusoff to apply under Section 6 (3) of the same Act and not under Section 6 (1) of the SOSMA 2012?
Witness: Yes.
To a question by Sivananthan, the witness also said that he was not aware that some of the 11 applications to him, communication interceptions had taken place few weeks after he had given them consent.
To another question by Sivananthan, the witness explained that he had also received another communication interception applications after the skirmish but could not recall how many of it.
The witness was testifying in the trial of 30 accused persons, including one woman and a nephew of the late self-styled Sulu sultanate III, Datu Amirbahar Hushin Kiram, who are facing various charges of committing terrorism acts. Twenty-seven of them are represented by Sivananthan.
They were apprehended during separate operations throughout Ops Sulu (later known as Ops Daulat) at several places in Lahad Datu, Semporna, Kunak and Sandakan between February 12 and April 10, 2013.
Waging war against the King carries the mandatory death sentence while the other charges provide for an imprisonment for life and a fine, upon conviction.
Meanwhile, to a question by counsel Abdul Ghani Zelika, who defended Abdul Hadi Mawan, the witness testified that he was not aware that communication interception on a contact number allegedly owned by Abdul Hadi was only conducted a month after he gave an authorization to the police to do it.
The witness further explained that he was only told that the interception, which was applied by ACP Yusoff, needed to be performed immediately.
The trial, held at a hall doubled as an open court at the Kepayan prisons here under tight security checks by police and prison personnel, will continue today.