Leksun (left) listening to his counsel Chong yesterday.
KOTA KINABALU: An oil palm planter claimed at the High Court here that without his knowledge, a video of him allegedly speaking to five to six people at the Sunday market was recorded after he talked about his disappointment at not being able to meet Dato’ Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail to hand over a newspaper cutting about Deputy Chief Minister Datuk Christina Liew and two others being allegedly ordered to pay damages to a company in relation to a land case.
Leksun Injil added that what he allegedly said in the video about Liew was information he obtained from a newspaper about the case.
The 56-year-old witness who was testifying before Judicial Commissioner Leonard David Shim yesterday said that he did not know he had been recorded in a video as he did not see any phone nor video tools used by anyone when he talked about his disappointment after knowing that Wan Azizah, who was at that time President of Parti Keadilan Rakyat, had left the place.
“I did not remember the date and month the alleged video was recorded, what I remember was that I went to the Sunday market at Gaya Street, to meet Wan Azizah to tell her my protest against Liew as a candidate in Tawau as that time it was election season.
“But when I arrived there, I was told by some strangers that Wan Azizah had just left. I was very disappointed when told about that, therefore I voiced out my failure at not being able to meet Wan Azizah,” explained Leksun, who was the first witness for the defendant.
Further in his witness statement, Leksun claimed that the person continued to ask him why and what happened. He eventually told him what happened and while he was talking, he did not know the video footage of him was recorded by someone whom he also did not know.
Leksun further stated in his witness statement that he knew Liew as she allegedly represented some of the smallholders, whom he referred to as Bagahak smallholders to initiate a suit against a company but afterwards Leksun claimed that many of them allegedly declared that they never appointed Liew and Leksun also claimed that he was also a plaintiff in the suit against a company.
The witness also said that he did not know the existence of the alleged video and only came to know about it when he received a letter from Liew’s solicitor in 2019.
Apart from that, Leksun explained that the alleged video had been edited as the words in it had been repeated.
To another question in his witness statement, Leksun claimed that what he said about Liew to those five to six people were not his words.
“I got the information allegedly from a newspaper dated October 26, 2014 regarding the High Court’s decision on Liew’s case.
Under examination-in-chief by counsel Chong Kian Ming, who represented Leksun, Chong had referred his client to several documents and on one of the documents was allegedly a power of attorney letter (surat kuasa) to one named Samsuri.
When asked by his counsel whether he wanted to say something about the document, Leksun answered yes and said, “During the time a company had allegedly paid them a lower price, they allegedly gave Samsuri power to sue the company after alleged persuasion by Samsuri.”
Leksun also identified another document which was an alleged sale and purchase agreement of one Siti Rafidah with a smallholder which was him.
“Regarding this sale and purchase agreement, we just came to know that Siti Rafidah is the clerk to the plaintiff,” claimed Leksun.
To another document referred to Leksun, he testified that the document was allegedly an affidavit for suing a company but not all of them understood the contents of the affidavit as Leksun claimed that only several pages were explained because at that time everybody was allegedly focused to take money and not to understand the affidavit.
To another question by his counsel, Leksun testified that he did not know about a website where the alleged video was allegedly published and he also did not how to read and write in Chinese.
Liew had filed a defamation suit against Leksun, the sole defendant, seeking for damages for libel, including aggravated or alternative damages for alleged slander.
She also sought an injunction to restrain Leksun whether by himself, his servants or agents or otherwise from publishing or causing to be published or contributed to the publication of the alleged defamatory video of Liew.
Liew also sought for costs and such other or further relief as the court deemed fit.
Under cross-examination by counsel Datuk Alex Decena, who represented Liew, Leksun agreed that Sunday market at Gaya Street was a place where normally there were many people visiting the place before the Covid-19 pandemic hit Malaysia.
To another question by Decena, Leksun did not know whether the place was used by politicians to strengthen their campaigns but Leksun claimed that he went there to meet Wan Azizah.
Leksun further disagreed to a suggestion by Decena that his allegation against Liew, whom he claimed to have cheated them, the smallholders in Lahad Datu, was no basis as the witness claimed that what he said was written in the newspaper.
“What I said was based on the newspaper report on October 26, 2014,” Leksun testified.
To another suggestion by Decena, Leksun agreed that he already knew Liew was the candidate that was why he wanted to meet Wan Azizah because he wanted to express his complaint.
To another suggestion by Decena, Leksun testified that he wanted to hand over the newspaper cutting to Wan Azizah and he further agreed that the candidate’s name would not be cancelled due to the allegation against Liew, but at least Wan Azizah would read the newspaper cutting.
Leksun further agreed to another suggestion by Decena that only five to six people heard what he was saying because Leksun explained that he was at the corner of an area not in the middle of the public and on the suggestion of the high pitch of his voice while talking to the people, Leksun also agreed to it and said it was the way he talked.
Meanwhile, in the morning proceedings, Liew, the first plaintiff’s witness, testified in re-examination that she disagreed to a suggestion by the defendant’s counsel that she had no direct evidence to link Leksun to the alleged video because in the alleged video Leksun had allegedly identified himself and Liew also noticed that Leksun was allegedly looking in the direction of the person, who recorded the video for about four times and Liew claimed that there were numerous flashlights in the alleged video recording while Leksun was allegedly talking.
The plaintiff had also called two other witnesses before closing its case, namely Josephine Chin and Heron Paul Barry.
Chin testified that she was requested by the plaintiff’s advocates to search for documents in preparation for the bundle of documents using the firm’s computer and printed them using the firm’s printer.
As for Heron, he testified to confirm that he attested the alleged affidavit of 746 smallholders of Bagahak oil palm plantation scheme in 2006.
Decena was assisted by counsel Jordan Kong.
The trial resumes today.