So when did Najib know about the bounty from SRC?

"Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak had no knowledge, nor was he informed, that funds from SRC International Sdn Bhd were transferred into his personal bank accounts, Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali said.

"He said evidence showed that at all material times, the prime minister was of the belief that the "payments made by him" were made from the Saudi royal family's RM2.6 billion political donation.

"There is no evidence to show the PM gave any approval for the transfer of monies from the account of SRC International into his personal accounts," Apandi told a press conference in Putrajaya this morning."

- An excerpt of a Malaysiakini report, Jan 26, 2016

Many a time, events of the past can come back to either exonerate an individual or emerge from the grave to haunt him or her.

On the outset, before legal eagles contend that my comments are contemptuous, it must be declared that this commentary is made as “Joe Public.” The issue of interfering with an ongoing court case or “influencing the judge” or be viewed as sub judice must be dismissed as non-existent.

To support this, I quote this report from The Malay Mail when counsel had complained to the Federal Court on one of the two articles I wrote before former Selangor menteri besar Khir Toyo (above) was sentenced in a corruption case:

“Earlier this afternoon, before the Federal Court delivered its decision on the sentencing for Mohamad Khir, (Muhammed) Shafee (Abdullah) had brought these two articles to the attention of the judges.

“This article was calculated to appear before the decision, probably to prejudice and cause irreparable damage to proceedings,” Shafee had told the judges.

“The Federal Court panel for this case said, however, that they are not affected by any reports on Mohamad Khir’s case and had only decided purely on the evidence and the facts.

“None of these reports, either here or other reports, influenced us at all,” Chief Judge of Malaya Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin said before he went on to deliver the five-man panel’s unanimous decision.”

Taking cognisance of the stand of the highest court in the land, I refer to the testimony of Ihsan Perdana Sdn Bhd managing director Dr Shamsul Anwar Sulaiman (above) who said that Najib appeared “genuinely” shocked when informed RM42 million was debited into the latter’s personal accounts.

Shamsul said he went to meet Najib after he was released from detention by the MACC in July 2015. Malaysiakini yesterday reported the exchangebetween counsel and witness:

Shafee: When you went to see Najib to tell the story. What was Najib’s (reaction)?

Shamsul: He was shocked about somebody putting money in his accounts. He didn’t even know.

Shafee: He didn’t even know what?

Shamsul: He didn’t even know why (the money was transferred) through me.

Now, here’s the question: If Najib knew about the money through Shamsul in 2015, how did Apandi claim six months later that Najib was not aware? Surely, this does not add up. 

If Shamsul had told this thing about “somebody putting his money in his accounts” earlier, then the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) erred. (I must reiterate that I do not want to suggest anything sinister or incompetence.) 

The burning question - under what circumstances did the AGC officers suggest to their boss that Najib was not aware of the transfer?

Besides the AGC and the boss would have come across or read numerous reports, including that from the task force that was set up with Apandi’s predecessor Gani Patail (above), that SRC was being investigated for allegedly having SRC funds in his accounts.

For clarity at least, Apandi should not fall back on “sub judice” – the principle of law he used to answer my question at a press conference.

Free Today Malaysia reported on April 26, 2016:

“The sub judice rule must stay because judges are only human, says Attorney-General Apandi Ali. Responding to a question by investigative journalist R Nadeswaran on why the sub judice rule is still being maintained, Apandi pointed to the “human element” of the judicial system as a reason.

“We can’t take for granted that judges can’t be influenced. There have been instances (where) judges have been influenced. Even the mere presence of people in a courtroom can instil fear in a judge. Judges are only human,” he told reporters at a luncheon talk.”

There is no reason to fear that High Court judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, the witnesses or the battery of lawyers for both sides will be cowed by anyone – even the sprinkling of BossKu supporters who loiter around the courts in Jalan Duta. 

Let’s have some clarification, even if Apandi has not been subpoenaed as a witness.

---

R NADESWARAN, having attended Apandi’s press conferences, discovered that 1+1 does not add up to 2. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com - Mkini