A woman identified Mr Mohammed Sarwar as the man who had called at the home of her friend to see if she was eligible to vote in the 1997 General Election, at the High Court in Edinburgh, yesterday.
Mrs Muntaz Arif also allegedly told police that the Govan MP had said her friend would be able to vote in Govan, but should not mention she had moved to her current address only a few months ago.
The friend, Mrs Shadia Hussain, 33, said on Wednesday that she could not be sure of the identity of the man who came to her door in Leven Street, Govan, before the election.
Mrs Arif was giving evidence on the third day of the trial of Mr Sarwar, 46, who denies forming a fraudulent scheme to induce the electoral registration officer for the city of Glasgow to add four names and false qualifying addresses to the register of electors for Govan.
It is alleged that between January 1 and March 31, 1997, he provided false statements to the effect that the four had been resident at specified addresses within the constituency on October 10, 1996, the qualifying date for voting in the election.
Mr Sarwar, who is also accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice, denies inducing Mrs Hussain to falsely state, in a form seeking to have her name added to the register of electors, that she had lived at Leven Street since August 1996, although he knew that she had not moved there until November that year.
Mrs Arif, 31, of Leven Street, told the court that she was in the kitchen at Mrs Hussain's flat in March 1997, when an Asian gentleman called.
She heard her friend being asked how long she had stayed at that address, to which the reply was: ''Not long.''
Asked by Mr Duncan Menzies, QC, prosecuting, who was having the conversation with Mrs Hussain, she replied: ''Mohammed Sarwar.''
Mrs Arif was then taken through a police statement dated April 25,1997, which read: ''The conversation he (Mr Sarwar) had with Shadia was in connection with the forthcoming election. He was explaining to her that he required her vote and hoped she would vote for him.''
Mrs Hussain had said she did not think she would be eligible to vote in Govan since she had recently arrived in the area. Mr Sarwar told her that if she filled in a form she would be able to vote, and said not to mention that she had been there for just a few months. It would have to be backdated.
Cross-examined by Mr Michael Jones, QC, for Mr Sarwar, Mrs Arif denied that she had repeatedly refused to give a statement to the MP's solicitors, and said she could not remember receiving letters from the lawyers.
Mr Jones put it to the witness: ''You didn't want to help the defence by giving a statement.''
Mrs Arif: ''That isn't correct.''
She told the court that in 1994, her husband had suffered a warehouse accident while working for United Wholesalers. He had made a claim for #20,000 and turned down an offer of #4000.
Mr Jones: ''You telephoned Mr Sarwar about this offer and you complained to him that he wanted to be an MP and he couldn't even treat his staff fairly.''
Mrs Arif: ''Those were not my words.''
She said she had asked Mr Sarwar why he could not help and he had explained he was no longer a director of United Wholesalers.
Mr Jones: ''Because you were annoyed you warned him if your husband did not receive the compensation you wanted you would make sure he was not elected.''
Mrs Arif: ''No. My husband had his accident in 1994. The election was in 1997 and the conversation had nothing to do with his election.''
She explained that the dispute over her husband's compensation was with an insurance company.
Asked if she held a grudge against the MP, she replied: ''None whatsoever. I even voted for him.''
The trial continues.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article