Delusional diatribe or free speech?

Malaysians from all walk of life eagerly await disgraced former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak’s appeal against his conviction and sentence on the SRC International Sdn Bhd criminal case, which he is entitled to under our judicial system.

The merits of his case will be decided by an appellate court, but this has not prevented the ordinary rakyat from making remarks ranging from facts-based comments to incredulous statements, some which border on stupidity. It has also fawned satirical asides.

Posts in social media are feeding the frenzy and because the decision will be made by a panel of judges and not by a jury, the rules of sub judice have been ignored. It now appears to be a free-for-all pending the disposal of the appeal.

Likewise, Najib and his supporters have been equally vocal and making extra-judicial comments. The media has accorded them the coverage that they are desperately seeking, but isn’t what is said ought to have been said in mitigation?

As one former editor noted: “Why is the media giving Najib the space and time to spew his delusional diatribe? He had more than his day (in fact, weeks) in court to clear his name and dispute the charges. And he was found guilty and duly sentenced. Mitigation time is over! Would any media still give coverage to any other ordinary convicted criminal, let alone a Kleptocrat extraordinaire?”

But wouldn’t censoring Najib be an affront to freedom of expression that we all cherish?

Harsh words indeed, but when you have been found guilty and sentenced, the cloud and the Sword of Damocles hang over your head until you are exonerated. And that’s a lesson to convicted felons, especially those who had previously enjoyed VIP privileges.

Yesterday, Najib released a video extolling his virtues as a philanthropist who used his ill-gotten gains for charity and political purposes.

Using percentages and figures to question the punishment, he claimed: “I was ordered to pay an RM210 million fine on the RM42 million where 99 percent was spent for CSR - RM5 for every RM1 spent. The truth is, it was not for personal use. The court itself confirmed that 99 percent was not for personal use.”

But he was not on trial for using public money for personal purposes but was convicted for abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and money laundering charges.

It is noteworthy to put on record that notorious criminal Botak Chin also claimed to be the modern-day Robin Hood, robbing the rich and feeding the poor!

No one is disputing how the money was used - but conveniently forgot that Najib had admitted charging RM543,530 to his credit card at luxury boutiques in the USA. He had also testified to spending RM127,017.46 on a luxury hotel stay as part of his “personal holiday” in Bangkok, Thailand, in 2015.

In the video, he also disputed Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali’s ruling that there was no evidence the Saudi king intended to provide him with a “donation”, pointing to witness testimonies that suggested otherwise.

But the judge found no evidence

In his verdict, the judge found no evidence that Najib was personally informed of the donation, nor did Najib attempt to verify the source of the funds when he received them. Nazlan also noted evidence that money “suddenly appeared” in Najib’s account whenever his account balance was low.

If readers search in Malaysiakini’s archives, they will come across a news report dated Aug 22, 2015, headlined: “Zahid: Arabs gave RM2.6b to keep Umno in rule”.

Excerpts:

Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said he met the wealthy Arab family who had donated the US$700 million (RM2.6 billion) that was channelled into Najib Abdul Razak’s personal bank account.

He said the “king and prince”, whom he did not name, had donated the money because of Malaysia’s commitment to fighting terrorism and being a moderate Muslim country with a plural society.

The Umno vice-president, who did not name the family, said he has also seen the original documents of the transfer, and cited this as proof that no Retirement Fund Inc (KWAP) money had gone into Najib's accounts.

Putting oneself in the shoes of Joe Public, the obvious question would be: “Why didn’t Najib call Zahid as a witness. The court, through his lawyers, could have issued Zahid a subpoena compelling him to testify in court.”

This process and the evidence would have poked holes in the prosecution’s case of the money coming from KWAP, but it did not happen. Zahid (above) could have testified that he saw the documents related to the money transfer - or was there a real worry that perjury is a serious offence?

But then again, documents from the prosecution would have debunked such claims because the money, supposedly from the Arab royalty, was sent to Najib’s account via a circuitous and convoluted way. It went half-way around the world before it ended up in Singapore’s Tanore Finance, which then transferred the money into Najib’s account.

Couldn’t the money be wired to Malaysia directly via a bank in Saudi Arabia? Answers to these questions by Najib would have revealed more than just the truth.

When Najib was charged two years ago, he sought a gag order on the media and public with regard to discussing the merits of his corruption case.

In rejecting the application, Justice Nazlan ruled: “The existing law of contempt and defamation already provides available and ready measures to deal with any substantial risk of prejudice or interference with the criminal justice system.

“The law of contempt can only be granted in the most exceptional of cases, where the substantial risk of prejudice is additionally especially imminent and serious.”

Enough said. Let Najib rant, bombast and express outrage as much as Joe Public wants to have his say on social media. What is good for the goose must also be good for the gander.

---

R NADESWARAN says that if Najib wants to use the media, so be it but he must also expect the brickbats that follow. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com - Mkini

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of us.