Ex-WP cadre Yudhishthra Nathan admits he wanted Raeesah Khan to lie more as party had no ‘suitable plan’ to be honest

NATHAN WANTED KHAN to “actively maintain the lie”

Under cross-examination by Singh’s lawyer Andre Jumabhoy, Mr Nathan agreed that after Ms Khan’s meeting on October 12, 2021, he was concerned that the WP had not come up with a “suitable plan” to come clean.

“And in the absence of an appropriate plan, your position was that Ms. Khan should lie further?” asked Mr. Jumabhoy.

When Deputy Chief District Judge Luke Tan asked for clarification, the lawyer specified that he meant he was “actively” telling more lies, not just not telling the truth.

“At that particular moment, because of the circumstances we were in, I would say yes. At that particular moment,” Mr. Nathan admitted.

He said this was due to “the circumstances, the months of direction from the party leaders” and “the lack of a proper plan” when Ms Khan called him after the meeting on October 12, 2021.

“So at that point I was hesitant, yes,” he said.

When asked by Mr Jumabhoy if this meant his position was intended to “actively lie some more”, Mr Nathan said it was intended to “actively perpetuate the lie” in Ms Khan’s false anecdote.

Judge Tan then asked what Mr Nathan intended Ms Khan to do to “actively perpetuate the lie”.

“At that point, I had made a suggestion to her to clarify the age of this sexual assault victim she had met in the women’s support group. So ‘active’ in the sense that she might clarify the age. But don’t come out and say she lied about following the victim to the police station,” Nathan said.

As police investigated Ms Khan’s claim, Judge Tan asked Mr Nathan whether he intended Ms Khan to tell police these new details about the suspected rape survivor’s age.

“I can’t remember whether my comment referred to the police investigation in particular or just in general. Like if she were asked about it again,” he said.

Mr Nathan said there had been previous conversations with Ms Khan in which there had been “some doubt” about the age of the woman involved in her false anecdote, but that he could not remember when these conversations took place.

This prompted Mr. Jumabhoy to ask: “Are you thinking of this now because you don’t want to be the author of the suggestion?” Mr Nathan disagreed.

The lawyer later referred to a message sent by Mr Nathan in a chat group with Ms Khan and Ms Loh on October 12, 2021, which said: “First of all, I think we should just not give too many details. An apology at best because the facts (about) her age are not accurate.”

Mr Nathan had redacted this message in his evidence tendered to the COP.

Under questioning, Mr Nathan said he could not remember whether he had actually proposed this plan during a meeting he and fellow WP cadre Loh Peiying had with Singh later that day on October 12, 2021.

He agreed that he did not trust that WP leaders would be able to address the issue “in a way that would minimize the damage to the party at the time”.

He also said the party did not have an “appropriate plan” at the time for Ms Khan to be honest, as the plan was “for Ms Khan to be honest but not mention her sexual assault”.

Last week, Ms Loh acknowledged in her testimony under questioning that Mr Nathan had suggested continuing the lie during the meeting with Singh.

She also agreed that Singh had responded by saying: “Don’t even suggest covering this up with another lie.”