Easy to defend 'innocent' Najib on 1MDB, says Nazri

As far as Tourism and Culture Minister Nazri Abdul Aziz is concerned, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is innocent of all the allegations against him with regard to 1MDB.

Therefore, the Umno supreme council member said it is not difficult to defend his boss.

“First of all, if you want to feel easy to defend (someone), you must believe he is innocent. If I don't believe in his innocence, then it will be difficult,” he told Malaysiakini.

When pointed out that 1MDB is the subject of investigations and court actions in various countries, Nazri said there is a difference between the firm's management and the allegations against Najib.

“We are talking about the involvement of the prime minister (in the scandal). We are not talking about the management of 1MDB.

“The management of the company, everything is done by the board of directors. If there is any fault at all or wrongdoings in 1MDB, you can't say (it involved the) PM,” he argued.

Though Najib has denied abusing the firm's funds, his critics claim that he must be accountable as chairperson of 1MDB's advisory board. He has since relinquished this position.

Furthermore, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) also implicated Najib and his wife, who were referred to as “Malaysian Official 1” (MO1) and “wife of Malaysian Official 1” in its asset forfeiture suits related to 1MDB.

The DOJ also named Najib's stepson Riza Aziz and businessperson Jho Low, who is described as a family friend of the premier.

In its suits, the DOJ alleged that a total of US$731 million of misappropriated 1MDB funds had entered the personal accounts of MO1.

This included US$681 million transferred in March 2013, which the DOJ documents quoted the Malaysian attorney-general Mohammed Apandi Ali as saying that it was a personal donation from a member of the Saudi royal family.

Both the DOJ and Apandi noted that in August 2013, US$620 million of the funds was returned.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Abdul Rahman Dahlan had confirmed MO1 was Najib but claimed that since the latter was not named in the suits, he is not the subject of investigations.

'Election spending under Najib more transparent than Dr M'

However, Nazri insisted that none of the allegations or investigations abroad established a direct link between Najib and the scandal.

“I am only talking about (the involvement) of the prime minister. Of course, there has been mismanagement of 1MDB. But if you say involving the prime minister? None.

“With regard to any money trail, talk to the management of 1MDB.

“If there are any cases overseas, go ahead and talk to them. It's overseas, and so any offence committed is out of our jurisdiction.

“Most important to me, it does not involve Najib,” added the former de facto law minister,

Similarly, Nazri also said Najib is innocent of the allegations surrounding the RM2.6 billion donation which was deposited into his personal accounts.

He pointed out that BN's election campaign spending under Najib was more transparent than during the time of former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who is now leading the opposition pact.

“Yes… on the RM2.6 billion. I would rather he (Najib) put it into an account. Because I know how much money went in.

“I don't know how much Dr Mahathir collected or spent for five elections. Why? Because he never put the money into an account,” he added.

In the following excerpt from Malaysiakini's interview, Nazri also claimed that there is no merit in the calls for Najib's resignation over this issue.

(The interview has been edited for language and brevity.)

Najib put the money into his personal accounts, not party account. Your thoughts?

That's okay. Because I know what transpired. He (Najib) didn't want to be beholden to any businessman. If you collect money from a businessman, then after elections, you would have to give back in the form of concessions or others.

If he puts the money into the party's account, then it will involve the deputy president and vice-president.

He is not selfish… (he said) 'I don’t want to involve my deputy because I am the one who does the negotiation with the donor.' If anything happens, like now, he will take the blame alone.

All he did is for the party. He has been accused of various allegations. Do you think it's fair for me to keep quiet? Not fair. I have to share the burden with him.

I want to defend the prime minister because all he did was for the party, and putting money into the (personal) account is not an issue.

What about the roles of Jho Low and Najib's step-son?

In law, they are different individuals. Even for me, the allegations made against them were flimsy. Why? We don't understand the US Department of Justice. If you (DOJ) want to sue, then sue them lah.

In all fairness, the 1MDB is not just about lawsuits or breaking the law. You have the Swiss and Singapore authorities taking action. Not just lawsuits but also the money trail is detailed. So is it becoming more difficult to defend Najib?

Now we are equating 1MDB to Najib and Najib to 1MDB. We all came to the conclusion that 1MDB is equated to the prime minister.

I am very confident. I want to say to people like Dr Mahathir who asked why other countries are taking action but Malaysia is not. It's not like this.

It's because the so-called offences were committed overseas. There are no offences taking place here and so no action has been taken.

What about the Saudi donation?

We must all understand in Malaysia there is no law that you can't solicit any donations. In the US, there is. Even then it's not illegal to solicit the donation. The only thing you must do is come out with a receipt. Even for RM1. That's all…not wrong to solicit donations.

But the issue is that the money comes from a foreign country?

It's okay. We know that in the US, the Democratic Institute, the Republican Institute, they also donate money to PKR. We all know.

But not to the tune of RM2.6 billion?

What's the difference between RM1 and RM2.6 billion?

Let's talk perception here. When you have the prime minister's stepson implicated, a businessperson said to be a family friend as well in what has been described as the “biggest kleptocracy scandal”, is it wrong to expect the prime minister to be accountable? In mature democracies, a politician would need to resign under such circumstances.

As I said, it's perception. If it's not (something) illegal, why should he go? You don’t have to comply to Western standards. It's only a perception so I'm not worried. - Mkini