“Saya sudah terang kepada Hadi secara peribadi kesalahan Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, tetapi dia nampak dedak sekarang. Jadi saya tidak pasti makan dedak atau tidak. Tetapi nak kata dia tidak tahu kesalahan Najib itu tidak mungkin kerana saya sudah memberi penjelasan yang mendalam berkenaan kesalahan Najib. Berkenaan dia tunduk kepada kuasa asing, kes 1MDB dan sebagainya, semua ini membazirkan duit rakyat.”
That was what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the leader of the ANC (Anti-Najib Campaign) and the new de facto Opposition Leader said about the PAS President, Tok Guru Abdul Hadi Awang. In short, what Mahathir is saying is, Hadi is a crook — meaning Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has bought him off.
And how does Mahathir know that Najib has bought off Hadi? Well, because Hadi refuses to join Mahathir in ousting Najib from office. So that is the ‘evidence’ that Hadi has been bought off. If not surely Hadi would join Mahathir to oust Najib.
That is indeed a very serious allegation. Mahathir has alleged that Hadi is a crook and Hadi will need to prove he is not a crook. In Malaysia, the accuser does not need to prove the allegation. Instead, the accused needs to prove his or her innocence. Can you remember back in 1999 when Anwar Ibrahim was convicted of sodomy because, according to the judge, Anwar failed to prove his innocence?
Anyway, according to Mahathir, he personally met Hadi to explain in detail that Najib is guilty of all sorts of things. However, being a leader of an Islamic party, and wanting to prove that Islamic laws such as Hudud are fair and just that would never punish anyone unless there is 100% without any doubts evidence, Hadi was not able to accept Mahathir’s pronouncement of Najib’s guilt based merely on hearsay.
Even in a Secular court hearsay cannot be used as evidence to convict anyone. And in the event of a doubt the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused. And Islamic laws are supposed to have an even higher standard and burden of proof than Secular laws (which allows for circumstantial evidence even for murder). So Hadi would be mad to just accept Mahathir’s word for it and even then based on hearsay and not as an eyewitness and with no tangible evidence to support the allegation.
You might think Hadi may be many things but stupid and unprincipled are not amongst those that he is. How can Hadi convince Malaysians that Islamic laws are just and fair if he just accepts unfounded rumours with no evidence as proof of Najib’s guilt? Hadi might as well commit suicide because that in essence will be what he will be doing.
The trouble is Mahathir will tell you (the same thing which he told Hadi as well) that many people came to see him to complain about Najib and 1MDB and that they urged him to do something about the matter (the script he has been reading since December 2014). So Mahathir is basing this whole thing on what people complained and not based on what he himself witnessed.
Mahathir then says that since many complaints have been made and suspicions raised then we must assume that Najib is guilty and if he is not guilty then he has to prove his innocence.
Mahathir says Najib stole RM42 billion of 1MDB’s money. Mahathir asks where the RM2.6 billion that was transferred into Najib’s personal bank account came from. Mahathir demands that Najib explain. But when he does, Mahathir rejects the explanation and says that Najib is lying.
And this is what sensible people like Hadi cannot understand. You allege someone is guilty and instead of proving that person’s guilt you ask that person to prove his innocence. But then when he does you reject it and say that the explanation is a lie.
According to the Qur’an, when you make an allegation (say of sexual misconduct) you need four witnesses. And if you do not have four witnesses (because you are the sole witness) then you must take an oath and swear you are a witness and you are telling the truth. And if you fail to do that then you have to be lashed 80 times.