Broad grounds behind apex court's double blow to Najib

 

The Federal Court yesterday dealt a double blow to Najib Abdul Razak after it rejected two of the former prime minister’s applications in his final appeal concerning the SRC International corruption case.

While Najib found the rulings disappointing and shocking, the broad grounds released by the court yesterday give perspective on how the rulings were reached.

His first application sought to introduce new evidence to the trial. Najib (above) and his lawyers claimed the evidence showed trial judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali had a conflict of interest.

This was over Nazlan's tenure as general counsel to Maybank at the time when SRC International was taking loans from the bank.

The five-member Federal Court bench led by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, however, found the evidence presented failed to show there was any impropriety.

“We further find that there is no nexus between justice Nazlan’s previous employment with Maybank and the charges against the applicant so as to suggest a conflict of interest, giving rise to bias,” the bench wrote in broad grounds for their judgement.

Meanwhile, the apex court also rejected a motion from Najib's lawyers to delay the appeal hearing by three to four months on grounds they were not read.

On July 26, Najib dropped the team led by Mohamed Shafee Abdullah and appointed Messrs Zaid Ibrahim Suflan TH Liew & Partners to represent him instead.

The court acknowledged that Najib had a right to change his legal team but this should not be an excuse for them to be unprepared for the hearing.

Najib Abdul Razak and his lawyers

“(Appointing new lawyers) is his right to do so but he cannot, after having made that decision, turn around and say that his new lawyers are not ready to proceed with the hearing of the appeals.

“The new lawyers too, having accepted the brief, are not entitled to say they need more time to prepare, knowing fully well that the dates had been fixed well in advance,” the bench said.

The full broad grounds for both rulings can be read below.

Broad grounds to reject new evidence:

Broad grounds to reject postponement: