Najib Abdul Razak faced multiple rejections from the apex court during the first four days of his RM42 million SRC International corruption appeal this week.
The prosecution ended up spending more time orally submitting during the main appeal hearings, compared to the former prime minister’s new legal team.
This is Malaysiakini’s recap of what has been learned from the proceedings so far in the former finance minister’s case involving one count of abuse of power, three counts of criminal breach of trust (CBT), and three money laundering charges.
What happened at the Federal Court?
The five-person bench chaired by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat set four days this week and four days next week to hear Najib’s main appeal to quash his conviction over seven criminal charges as well as his sentence of 12 years in jail and RM210 million fine.
However, the Federal Court also fixed to first hear Najib’s bid to adduce fresh evidence to nullify the entire SRC criminal trial that led to his guilty verdict.
This resulted in the bench spending Monday and Tuesday (Aug 15-16) hearing submissions from the defence team and the prosecution over the application.
What was the basis of Najib’s new evidence bid?
The appellant claimed the fresh evidence showed that SRC trial judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali suffered from a conflict of interest due to his previous tenure as general counsel at Maybank.
The Pekan MP alleged that the commercial bank was involved in the formation of SRC, the then subsidiary of 1MDB.
Did the appellant succeed in introducing the evidence?
On Tuesday, the apex court unanimously dismissed the application, with Tengku Maimun ruling that the bench did not see the relevance of the alleged evidence.
The top judge noted they were not convinced Nazlan made his findings in the SRC case based on anything other than what was in the evidence.
What other application did Najib’s legal team make?
On Tuesday, the appellant’s lawyer Hisyam Teh Poh Teik also applied for a three to four-month adjournment of the appeal to allow the lawyers more time to prepare for it.
Did the apex court accede to this application?
Quite the opposite, as the bench denied the multi-month adjournment bid on grounds that a lawyer must be prepared to handle a case when he or she agrees to represent a client.
However, Tengku Maimun permitted a single day to be taken off on Wednesday (Aug 17), and for the hearing of the main appeal to begin on Thursday (Aug 18) instead.
(Previously, the bench fixed the entire working days of this week to hear the appeal)
How did Najib react to the double rejection?
The former premier said he was “shocked and bitterly disappointed” with the double blow, reiterating his claim that the alleged evidence would clearly indicate that Nazlan was heavily conflicted.
What transpired on Thursday?
Just before the commencement of the appeal hearing, Hisyam again tried to adjourn the proceedings, to which the bench stood its ground.
The counsel then applied to discharge himself from representing his client, but the Federal Court barred him from doing so.
Did Najib’s legal team present oral arguments for him?
In a twist, Hisyam told the apex court they would instead opt to rely on previous arguments put forward by the appellant’s initial legal team - headed by Muhammad Shafee Abdullah - when the case was before the Court of Appeal.
This then led to deputy public prosecutor V Sithambaram spending the rest of Thursday's hearing presenting oral arguments against Najib’s appeal.
How did Najib react to this latest turn of events?
The BN advisory board chairperson lamented that the situation was akin to him having no legal representation as his legal team was unable to get more time to prepare proper arguments for his appeal.
What took place on Friday (Aug 19)?
Sithambaram spent the whole morning and afternoon session presenting the prosecution’s arguments on why there is no validity to Najib’s appeal.
The prosecutor basically went through similar oral submissions made before the Court of Appeal against Najib’s then appeal, such as the trial judge finding the Arab donation defence argument as being untenable.
The DPP wrapped up arguments by Friday afternoon.
Did Najib’s lawyers present oral submissions on Friday?
Just like the day before, Hisyam did not present any oral submissions on Friday.
The counsel further informed the apex court that Najib had discharged the legal firm Zaid Ibrahim Suflan TH Liew & Partners from representing him.
Hisyam, who is from Johor-based law firm Teh Poh Teik & Co, remained on record as Najib’s counsel.
What happened after prosecution’s oral submissions?
On Friday, Tengku Maimun asked Hisyam whether he intended to make oral arguments to respond to Sithambaram’s submissions, and the lawyer replied no.
However, the top judge still gave an opportunity for him to present oral submissions when proceedings resume next Tuesday (Aug 23), noting he has Saturday, Sunday, and Monday (Aug 20-22) to prepare.
She pointed out the lawyer can always rely on the 94-ground petition of appeal filed by Najib’s previous legal team.
Tengku Maimun also dismissed Hisyam’s bid to adjourn the SRC appeal hearing on Tuesday and Wednesday next week.
The bid was made based on the reason that he has another court matter to attend to.
What happens if Najib’s lawyers still decline to orally submit?
Under the established judicial practice, the bench - which also includes Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim and senior judges P Nallini, Mary Lim Thiam Suan, and Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah - could in theory deliberate and deliver its verdict on that day itself.
However, the bench could also set another date to deliver its verdict, or reserve judgment to a verdict date yet to be fixed. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.