Yudhishthra Nathan admits he ignored Parliament's warning to not discuss evidence: Day 6 of Pritam's trial

Former Workers' Party (WP) member Yudhishthra Nathan was cross-examined by WP secretary-general Pritam Singh's lawyer Andre Jumabhoy on the sixth day of Singh's trial on Oct. 21.

He had previously testified on Oct. 18, as a witness for the prosecution.

In the latter half of the day on Oct. 21, Nathan was grilled by Jumabhoy on a message sent on Oct. 12, 2021 that was redacted in documents submitted to the Committee of Privileges (COP) formed to look into Raeesah Khan's case. The message from Nathan read:

"In the first place, I think we should just not give too many details. At most apologise for not having the facts about her age accurate."

Nathan said he thought the message was "immaterial" to the COP, saying he was told he could redact things which were irrelevant.

However, Jumabhoy countered:

"You knew full well, that it was relevant. It was so relevant, you decided to take it out. Let’s be clear… if it was irrelevant, you wouldn’t have wasted time and effort sifting through to remove it."

Jumabhoy highlighted that Nathan had gone to one message in the chat between himself, Raeesah, and Loh, and took it out.

Fellow ex-WP member Loh Pei Ying had also redacted the same message in documents she submitted to the COP.

Loh and Nathan were Raeesah's former aides.

Nathan spoke with Loh after they gave oral evidence to COP

Jumabhoy also questioned Nathan on whether he had spoken to Loh about which messages to redact.

Nathan told Jumabhoy that he might have had a phone call with Loh after the two of them had given evidence to the COP.

Nevertheless, Nathan said that he "couldn't recall exactly when" the phone call took place, adding that there were emails sent back and forth with the COP where he had shared more call logs with them.

Jumabhoy then asked Nathan if he had discussed with Loh which messages to redact when submitting to the COP over the phone call, to which Nathan said, "Yes".

Jumabhoy then asked Nathan if it was possible there were messages between Loh and himself about which texts should be deleted.

After a long pause, Nathan took a sip of water and then replied: "I think it's unlikely but I really can't remember... I can't remember, I really can't. I recall us possibly having a phone call... discussing like the redaction process, um, but I can't remember if we had texted about it as well."

Upon being pressed by Jumabhoy further on what took place during the conversation, Nathan said:

"I remember having a conversation with Loh about generally the redaction process and also I remember conveying to her that I thought that, uh, private views expressed to Raeesah were immaterial." 

Nathan admits he ignored what Parliament told him not to do

Jumabhoy then points out that Loh and Nathan were explicitly warned by the COP to not discuss their evidence, which Nathan affirmed he was aware of.

Jumabhoy then put it to Nathan that while Parliament had told the both of them they could not discuss their evidence, they did exactly that.

After a brief pause, staring at Nathan, Jumabhoy said: "So you effectively ignored what Parliament has told you not to do."

Nathan replied, "At that point in time, yes".

The COP is a parliamentary committee that looks into any complaints alleging breaches of parliamentary privilege.

Defence applies for unredacted messages, clashes with prosecution

Jumabhoy pressed Nathan on his recollection of various other messages he sent in a chat group with himself, Raeesah and Loh that were redacted.

The judge intervened to ask Jumabhoy the purpose of his line of query, to which Jumabhoy clarified that he was laying the groundwork for an application for Nathan's redacted messages to be provided to the defence.

The prosecution and defence sparred over the application.

The prosecution said that the redactions were not made by them, and that they have seen the unredacted messages. The prosecution said none of the messages "go to the guilt or innocence of the accused".

Deputy Public Prosecutor Ang Cheng Hock added:

"The only issue in this case is what happened on Aug. 8, first charge, and what happened on Oct. 3, second charge.... nothing in those messages that have been redacted go to those two issues."

Jumabhoy, on the other hand, insisted that the redacted messages are pertinent to establishing the credibility of the two witnesses.

Referring to Loh's admission that she had lied about the redactions, Jumabhoy added that if she was prepared to do that for the COP, it was "not a stretch” to think she would do it in court.

The judge queried Jumabhoy on whether Loh's and Nathan's statements after Oct. 4 are relevant to the case, given that they are broadly not pertinent.

Jumabhoy insisted that the credibility of the witness, and what they say in court, is very much an issue.

The judge noted that one of the points the prosecution is relying on for its case is Loh and Nathan's meeting with Singh on Oct. 12, when he allegedly said what he had told Raeesah on Oct. 3, and so the issue of their credibility leading up to the 12th is an issue, because it "goes to whether their evidence should be believed or not".

The judge then asked the prosecution to provide the documents with the redacted messages to him to read through before making a decision. 

Top photo from Mothership