Courts used own logic, contrary to evidence - Najib in appeal petition

Najib Abdul Razak has filed his 94-grounds petition of appeal in the RM42 million SRC International corruption case this late afternoon.

Among these cited grounds are that both the Kuala Lumpur High Court and Court of Appeal had used their own logic and rationale in contravention of evidence that exonerated him from the seven counts of abuse of power, criminal breach of trust (CBT), and money laundering.

Earlier today, the Federal Court gave him additional time, namely until later today, to file the petition of appeal.

Najib (above) was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years in jail and an RM210 million fine by the High Court in July 2020. The former premier’s conviction and punishment were upheld by the Court of Appeal in December last year.

However, there is a stay of execution on the sentences pending disposal of the former finance minister’s appeal.

‘Courts erred in fact and law’

According to a copy of the appeal petition, the former adviser emeritus to SRC claimed that the Court of Appeal had erred in fact and law in affirming the High Court verdict.

The Pekan MP alleged that he was aggrieved by the serious errors in face and law made by both courts in their respective grounds of judgment.

Najib claimed that both courts erred in fact and law when they failed to properly evaluate evidence and failed to recognise the differences between proven and unproven facts, between inferences that might be permissibly drawn and mere conjecture based on suggestion, unsubstantiated allegations, conjecture, suspicion and hearsay.

The appellant claimed that the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s findings on the authenticity and admissibility of documents.

During the trial stage, Najib’s defence team produced alleged documentary evidence to support his defence involving a purported donation from Arab royalty.

“The Court of Appeal and the High Court had erred in fact and/or law in making findings on the elements of all the charges by applying their own logic or rationale contrary to the oral and/or documentary evidence.

“Argument will be advanced that the appellant’s fair trial rights (as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and demanded by universal principle and international norms) were denied in particular due to the apparent failure by the prosecution to make necessary pre-trial disclosure of unused material and in general by the absence of a rigorous and mandatory regime for the disclosure of unused material capable of undermining the prosecution’s case or assisting the case of the appellant.

“Overall, the appellant will present the errors of the Court of Appeal and the High Court and the actions of the prosecution which have denied the appellant his rights under the Federal Constitution and which resulted in serious injustice to the appellant when he failed to obtain a fair and equitable trial,” Najib contended.

The apex court (Federal Court) has yet to fix a hearing date for Najib’s main SRC appeal.

The appellant is also seeking to get a Queen’s Counsel (QC) from the United Kingdom to represent him in the appeal. - Mkini