KOTA KINABALU (March 8): An admissibility of a recording which contained vital evidence in the teacher absenteeism trial was questioned at the High Court here on Friday.
A star witness, who was testifying before Justice Datuk Ismail Brahim, was exposing the contents of the recording when an objection was raised against her testimony.
“The recording was made by another teacher but it was using my device which I lent it to her,” explained the witness when asked by judge regarding her testimony.
Federal Counsel Mohd Fazriel Fardiansyah Abdul Kadir, who acted for the defendants in this trial, stood up and said that based on the witness’ answer, the defendants will object to any production of the said recording on the grounds that the other teacher was the one who recorded the video.
Mohd Fazriel argued that the witness was not the maker of the video.
In reply, counsel Shireen Sikayun, who represented the plaintiff, Siti Nafirah Siman, submitted that their witness had answered that the recording device was lent to the other teacher.
“We can ask the witness who owns this recording device, who turned it on, who turned it off, which who made these will be the maker of this recording,” Shireen pointed out.
Shireen: In whose possession is this recording kept?
Witness: The recording device is mine. Before leaving for Kota Kinabalu, me and the other teacher went to my house first and I asked permission from the other teacher if she wanted to record and she agreed. I’m the one who turned on the device from there until night when I reached home, then I turned off the recording.
The witness further testified that after that the other teacher had returned the device to her and in the recording there was an event that the witness helped the other teacher to use the device.
After hearing the testimony, the judge said that he will reserve his ruling on the admissibility of the recording as an evidence in the trial and he will come back to this issue in the next hearing session.
The judge also reserved his ruling on the admissibility of three other recordings as evidence in this case.
To a question, the witness testified that after the suit was filed, the first defendant, Mohd Jainal Jamran, had expressed his remorse to the witness twice which were on November 5 and 7, 2018 at two different locations.
The sole plaintiff for this suit, Siti Nafirah, had named Mohd Jainal, Hj Suid Hj Hanapi (sued in his capacity as school’s principal), Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Taun Gusi, District Education Officer of Kota Belud,
Director of Education Sabah, Director General of Education Malaysia, Minister of Education Malaysia and Government of Malaysia as first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth defendants respectively.
In her suit, Siti Nafirah claimed that the first defendant had allegedly failed to teach the English Language subject to her and her classmates during his assigned periods or timetable for the academic year of 2015.
Siti Nafirah also claimed that the other defendants had allegedly failed to take action against the first defendant for his alleged failure to teach her and her classmates.
Senior Federal Counsel Jesseca Daimis also acted for all the defendants.
Meanwhile, counsel Datin Mary Florence Gomez (Sabah Law Society’s Women and Children’s Rights Sub-Committee chairperson) and Yannik Mohd Annuar held a watching brief for the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam).
The trial will resume on April 22-23.
