KOTA KINABALU: The High Court here yesterday started hearing a RM50 million suit brought by former Chief Minister Tan Sri Harris Salleh against Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) president Datuk Yong Teck Lee and the party for allegedly insinuating he (Harris) was involved in causing the plane crash that killed his predecessor Tun Fuad Stephens and all 10 others on board the Nomad aircraft on June 6, 1976 .
Harris, 81, who was the first witness to testify before Justice Datuk Abdul Rahman Sebli, filed the suit on June 6 last year claiming general damages, aggravated and exemplary damages of not less than RM50 million to be assessed separately against Yong and SAPP as the first and second defendants respectively.
He is also seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants whether by themselves or their servants or employees or agents from printing and publishing further the statements and similar libel in any form or means.
In his testimony, Harris, who is represented by counsel Yunof Maringking and Trevor Maringking, told the court that an official enquiry was set up by the Federal Minister of Transport to investigate the cause of the plane crash which came to be known as Double Six Tragedy as it happened on June 6, 1976.
He said an Australia team of Nomad experts was flown to Sabah to help in the investigation on the incident by a coroner.
Asked by his counsel Yunof whether he could recall the findings made by the coroner as to the cause of the plane crash, Harris said, “I can only remember that it was said to be an accident but from the newspaper cutting in the Bundle of Documents, the cause of the air crash was raised in Parliament sometime in December 2009.”
He said that during that time, the then Deputy Transport Minister was reported to have said that the investigation on the accident showed that the crash was due to overloading, pilot error and an absence of radar instrument.
To another question whether he was aware of any other investigation done on the cause of the air crash, Harris said he did not know whether there was other official investigation made on the incident but he was given a VCD about a journalistic investigation undertaken by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Four Corners Television Programme entitled “Lies In The Sky”.
He said the programme revealed crucial information regarding Nomad aircraft, similar to the one that crashed with the late Tun Fuad Stephens and others on board.
Harris said it was said that since the early 1970s, there were already operation problems with the plane and a number of such aircraft had already crashed.
“It was also reported in the VCD that the Australian RAFFA pilots refused to fly Nomad aircraft,” he said.
Harris told the court that prior to taking this action he had never been accused by anyone directly or indirectly of criminal involvement in the air crash which took the lives of his friends and prominent Sabah leaders.
He claimed that the defendants had accused and insinuated that he was involved in the air crash in Sembulan.
He said Yong made a press statement on April 5, 2010 asking for re-investigation into the air crash to remove all doubts about the true cause following Tengku Razaleigh’s account of how he left the ill-fated aircraft at the very last moment that saved his life.
The plaintiff said he responded in a press statement on April 7, 2010, pointing out that Yong’s statement was inaccurate both in fact and interpretation.
“The first defendant made a follow-up statement with aggressive contents on April 9, 2010 by using words such as “something big and explosive”, “crime” and “assassination” which are directly or indirectly insinuating against me of criminal acts. Therefore, I have no alternative but to take this legal action to clear my name,” he said.
He said it was not true that he had invited Tengku Razaleigh to board the other plane at the last moment in order to save him.
Harris told the court that Tengku Razaleigh’s programme was pre-arranged by the State Government of Sabah and agreed by the latter to include a visit to the Banggi Island’s Cattle Farm.
He said the defendants’ claim of “new information” revealed by Tengku Razaleigh concerning the air crash was false and malicious as the latter had already agreed and decided earlier on the invitation to visit the cattle farm during an interview concerning the incident which was recorded in the book entitled “The Life and Death of Tun Fuad Stephens” and also in the book entitled “Harris Salleh of Sabah”.
Harris said the publication of the defamatory statement in the newspapers caused embarrassment to him and gravely injured and tarnished his reputation and integrity, and he suffered loss and damage as a result.
He said the said newspaper articles defamed him as the defendants’ statement meant or could be understood to mean that he must be investigated as he had knowledge beforehand about the air crash and or that he must be investigated because he had conspired with others to grap power and to become the Chief Minister of Sabah after the demise of the late Tun Fuad Stephens, by way of assassination.
He said the defendants’ statement was also understood to mean that he had conspired with others to facilitate the signing of the petroleum agreement between the Sabah and Federal governments as well as to hand over the petroleum wealth of Sabah to Petronas or the Federal Government.
Harris said the defendants’ call to re-investigate the air crash was not made in good faith because what Tengku Razaleigh generally stated was already recorded in books and publicly available which the defendants knew or ought to have known the true facts.
Meanwhile, during cross-examination by counsel Datuk Simon Shim, who acted for both defendants, Harris told the court that the result of the investigation on the plane crash was announced by a coroner.
He said as far as he remembered, the result was announced by the coroner after the investigation on the plane crash.
Harris disagreed with the counsel’s suggestion that there were a few versions of the cause of the crash.
However, he agreed with Simon that the two books referred to by the former had highlighted four possible causes of the incident, namely aircraft overloading, pilot error, design fault of the aircraft and sabotage.
When referred to several documents, the plaintiff agreed with Simon’s suggestion that that the former’s name was not mentioned in those articles.
However, the plaintiff said that although his name was not mentioned, the statements by the defendants were aimed at him as they were based on Tengku Razaleigh’s full statement that he (the plaintiff) had pulled him out of the said aircraft and saved his life.
That implied I knew that there was something going to happen to the aircraft,” he said.
by Kelimen Sawatan
No comments:
Post a Comment