KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here has struck down a subpoena requiring Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to appear as a witness in a civil suit totaling RM30 million, filed by 12 individuals against a businessman and his wife.
Datuk Vinod Balachandra Sekhar and his wife Winny Yeap Liew Heoh, were sued by plaintiffs consisting of 10 investors and two of Vinod’s former employees in 2023.
Judicial Commissioner Datuk Muhammad Adam @ Edward Abdullah, in allowing Anwar’s application to set aside the subpoena dated Jan 15, ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove that the Prime Minister was a relevant and material witness in the trial.
“No useful purpose can be achieved by ordering his presence. Such action would be oppressive and divert the focus of the trial from the real legal issues. They are also relying on photographs, social media posts and public events involving Anwar and Vinod.”
“At the highest level, such materials can only show the existence of a relationship or acquaintance. They do not prove that the applicant has personal knowledge of the transaction at issue in the pleadings. A relationship does not necessarily make a person a material witness.”
“Anyone mentioned in an email, photographed with any party, or referred to in a conversation can be compelled to appear in court. That is not the law. It is important to remember the important principle that subpoenas are not issued automatically without control,” he said.
“The plaintiff claimed that the applicant (Anwar) needed to be summoned because his name was used to commit fraud, but their own witnesses admitted that there was no evidence that his name was used to obtain investments or money. Therefore, the court allowed the applicant’s application to set aside the subpoena,” he said.
The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of RM20,000 to Anwar.
Lawyer Sanjay Mohan represented Anwar, while the plaintiff was represented by lawyer Colin Andrew Pereira.
The couple was sued in 2023 for alleged misrepresentation, fraud and breach of contract by 12 plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that Vinod convinced them to make investments directly or through companies he owned, without informing them of his alleged bankruptcy status.
They also claimed to have raised concerns via an email dated Sept 30, 2020. Vinod allegedly dismissed the concerns and stated that an individual named “Anwar” would handle the issue, thus giving the impression of a connection to Anwar, who the plaintiff believed was referring to the Prime Minister.
— NAMED
