Shafee claims apex court 'rushed' Najib's SRC appeal last year

 

Najib Abdul Razak’s RM42 million SRC International corruption appeal hearing last year before the Federal Court was “rushed”, the former prime minister’s lead lawyer contended.

Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said this was seen in the previous apex panel not allowing an application to adjourn the appeal hearing for between three and four months.

The lawyer was speaking to a five-person Federal Court bench chaired by Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Abdul Rahman Sebli during today’s hearing of Najib’s application to review his conviction as well as 12-year jail sentence and RM210 million fine in the SRC graft case.

Shafee (above) claimed that the previous bench - chaired by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat - had erred in not allowing an application by the former finance minister’s then-legal team for a three to four-month adjournment of the appeal hearing.

Shafee told the present bench - also consisting of Federal Court judges Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Rhodzariah Bujang, and Nordin Hassan, as well as Court of Appeal judge Abu Bakar Jais - that the then panel also erred in not allowing Najib’s then-lawyer Hisyam Teh Poh Teik to discharge himself from acting for the appellant.

Shafee submitted that Hisyam sought to discharge himself as the latter was not prepared to submit in the SRC appeal after the previous bench denied the adjournment application.

The lawyer pointed out that this resulted in Najib not getting a fair appeal hearing last year as Hisyam was forced to stay on while not being able to present submissions, with the then prosecution presenting submissions in counter against the appeal.

Shafee contended that the Federal Court’s refusal last year over the adjournment amounted to Najib being represented by an ineffective counsel, thus amounting to Najib’s legal representation being “illusory”.

“This was the first time it happened in our jurisdiction. When the massive appeal came up, there was a change of solicitors,” Shafee claimed, of the Federal Court last year not allowing the adjournment.

“The presence of Hisyam Teh Poh Teik was decorative at best, and that was not sanctioned by law, that is reviewable and that is a fundamental error that is at the root of a fair trial.

“Why was the court in a hurry? I know sometimes counsel irritates the court when asking for adjournment and the court is an expert in dealing with such matters, but it is a matter that the court needed to deal with and that is not by denying adjournment but via other ways, to comply with the rules of natural justice,” Shafee said.

Alleged rush due to GE15

The lead defence counsel then began submitting an allegation that Najib entertained the notion that he did not get justice from the SRC appeal as the 15th general election (GE15) was just around the corner.

The then apex court bench dismissed Najib’s SRC appeal on Aug 23 last year, while the Malaysian Parliament was dissolved a few months later on Oct 10, followed by GE15 on Nov 19.

However, this line of GE15-linked oral submissions led to an objection raised by deputy public prosecutor (DPP) V Sithambaram.

The DPP told the bench that counsel must not speak “from the Bar” and to just stick to the points contained in the written submissions filed earlier with the apex court.

Shafee then countered that the defence team is not saying the apex court last year “went through a dishonest process”, adding that his client could not be blamed for entertaining the perception.

Shafee then informed the present bench to take judicial notice of the issue.

The hearing of the SRC review application resumes tomorrow and is expected to continue on Wednesday this week.

Having exhausted his appeals before the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court, Najib has gone before the current apex court panel to hear his review over the case involving one count of abuse of power, three counts of criminal breach of trust, and three money laundering charges involving RM42 million of funds from SRC.

Currently incarcerated at Kajang Prison, Najib is also pursuing other avenues outside the judiciary, namely a petition for royal pardon as well as a petition before the United Nations over his alleged arbitrary detention.

Through the present review application, Najib contends that trial judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, who has since been elevated from the Kuala Lumpur High Court to the Court of Appeal, was in a conflict of interest when he heard and decided on the SRC International case.

Najib claimed, among others, that it was because the judge was allegedly aware it was Maybank Investment (an entity of Maybank Group) and BinaFikir (another entity of Maybank Group) that advised Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB in the matters pertaining to the setting up of SRC International.

Najib alleged that the conflict of interest arose due to Nazlan’s previous role as general counsel with Maybank.

Initially a subsidiary of 1MDB, SRC became fully owned by the Minister of Finance Incorporated (MoF Inc). 1MDB is also fully owned by MoF Inc.

Among the possible outcomes of the review are that Najib gets a full acquittal, has his appeal reheard by a different apex court bench, or that he gets a retrial of the SRC International case before a new High Court judge.

Besides targeting the previous apex court decision to uphold Najib’s SRC International conviction and sentencing, the former premier’s review also targets the previous panel’s three other decisions.

They are the decisions to deny his bid to produce additional evidence to strengthen the allegations against Nazlan; to reject his bid to postpone the appeal hearing; and to deny his application to recuse Tengku Maimun. - Mkini