KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has successfully set aside the subpoena requiring him to testify in a civil suit against businessman Datuk Vinod Sekhar and his wife, Datin Winy Yeap, at the High Court.
Judicial Commissioner Muhammad Adam @ Edward Abdullah, in his decision, said the plaintiffs failed to show that Anwar, who was the applicant, was a relevant and material witness in the suit.
In their application, the plaintiffs claimed that Anwar was a material witness as the first defendant, Vinod, allegedly used Anwar's name "to project credibility and to deflect queries".
The JC said the plaintiffs relied on two emails that mentioned the name "Anwar".
“In my judgment, that is patently insufficient. A name appearing in an email does not by itself make the bearer of that name a material witness, otherwise trials would become unmanageable," JC Muhammad Adam said here on Friday (June 19).
He said the party issuing the subpoena bears the burden to show that the witness was someone "who has seen the facts or knows the facts" relating to the case and material to the judge's decision, while the court must ensure that the subpoena was not oppressive, an abuse of process or used for collateral purpose.
The court took note that Anwar had affirmed an affidavit that he was not involved in, privy to, or aware of the alleged dealings, representation and transaction between the plaintiffs and defendants.
"There is no useful purpose (for Anwar) to be served with subpoena for his attendance. To do so would be oppressive, and would divert the trial from the real pleaded issues.
"The application is hereby allowed. The subpoena dated Jan 15 issued against Anwar is set aside," he said.
The court also awarded RM20,000 in costs to Anwar.
On April 15, Anwar filed the application to set aside the subpoena order claiming his non‑involvement in the lawsuit despite Vinod allegedly invoking his name in two emails for credibility.
In 2024, a group of 12 plantiffs launched the lawsuit against Vinod as the first defendant and Yeap as the second defendant.
They are claiming that Vinod had committed fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract while Yeap had conspired with him to perpetuate the fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract against the plaintiffs.
They are seeking to claim back the total sum of GB£2,540,361.24 and USD$3,042,163.01 with interests, damages and other reliefs deemed fit by the court.
The hearing resumes before JC Muhammad Adam on June 25.
