Former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak has filed for a new apex court bench to review its decision to reject his appeal in the RM42 million SRC International Sdn Bhd corruption case.
The former prime minister’s lawyers from Shafee & Co filed the review application earlier today.
On Aug 23, a five-person Federal Court bench chaired by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat denied Najib’s appeal to quash his conviction over seven criminal charges, as well as the 12-year jail term and RM210 million fine, in lieu of an additional five years in jail.
The other bench members were Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim and senior judges P Nallini, Mary Lim Thiam Suan, and Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah.
Najib is currently serving his sentence at the Kajang Prison.
According to a copy of the notice of motion, the Pekan MP is also appealing against the apex court’s decision to dismiss his three interlocutory applications.
One is Najib’s application to recuse trial judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali from the SRC International case and nullify the whole trial.
Second is his bid to adjourn the apex court hearing of his appeal to allow his legal team to prepare for the case, and thirdly his application to recuse Tengku Maimun from the appeal.
Through the review bid, Najib contended that Nazlan - who has since been elevated from the High Court to the Court of Appeal - was in a conflict of interest when he heard the SRC International case.
Because, among others, that he was allegedly aware that it was Maybank Investment (an entity of Maybank Group) and BinaFikir (another entity of Maybank Group) that provided the advice to Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB in the matters pertaining to the setting up of SRC International.
Initially a subsidiary of 1MDB, SRC was later transferred fully to the Minister of Finance Incorporated (MOF Inc). MOF Inc also fully owned 1MDB.
Najib repeated for the most part his allegations against Nazlan contained in the earlier failed bid to nullify the SRC International trial due to the latter’s previous role as general counsel with Maybank.
This included allegations that Nazlan had legal control, supervision and knowledge of an RM4.17 billion loan extended from the bank to 1MDB Energy, a subsidiary of 1MDB.
Najib also contended that the apex court’s refusal to grant an adjournment to his lawyer Hisyam Teh Poh Teik to prepare for the SRC International appeal was unconstitutional, allegedly violating Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.
“The newly appointed counsel (Hisyam) had not been able to read the voluminous records of appeal which account for 177 volumes and all previously written submissions (voluminous by themselves) from both sides and to reconsider the appeal afresh within days from the date of their appointment.
“As such, the new counsel could not possibly be an effective lawyer under those circumstances as demanded within the broad meaning of Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.
“The appellant (Najib) was not asked why he had to change counsel by the honourable Federal Court, but he managed to find an opportunity to make a statement at the end of the appeal before the sentencing, where he explained the true circumstances.
“The circumstances explained indicated that the reasons provided for the change of counsel were reasonable and bona fide.
“It was certainly not the fault of the applicant (Najib) who had depended on the advice of the newly appointed solicitors (including those from Singapore and India) and counsel,” Najib claimed.
He contended that the SRC International appeal was disposed of in spite of the fact that his legal team did not submit at all due to an alleged state of unpreparedness.
“Instead of allowing the applicant’s counsel a reasonable adjournment in order to achieve substantive justice, the chief justice ordered the full appeal to be argued where only the respondent’s counsel (the prosecutor) submitted.
“It was virtually a proceeding held in ex-parte mode (a type of legal proceeding where only one party was present instead of both sides attending),” Najib claimed.
Najib's legal team which involved Hisyam, among others, took over from the previous lawyers headed by Muhammad Shafee Abdullah back in July for the SRC appeal.
However, for the current review application, Shafee's law firm is the one which filed the bid on behalf of Najib.
The former premier also contended that Tengku Maimun was “clearly conflicted” as her husband had purportedly shown serious animosity or acrimony to Najib since May 2018 via Facebook.
“The chief justice, upon these revelations being made of her husband’s attitude, should have promptly recused herself in the light of her own husband’s open and exhibited declaration of animosity or acrimony to the applicant since May 2018.
“The honourable chief justice was also conflicted when she openly defended Nazlan, the trial judge, by making statements in the media even before the hearing of Nazlan’s disqualification application.
“This amounts to predetermination and a clear ground for conflict of interest,” Najib alleged. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.