No more cherries on the cake for Najib

 

 Habis. The end. It is all done - finito. And certainly, the curtains must come down on former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak’s SRC International case.

The theatrics in and outside court, the wailing ladies and the band of merry men in the hundreds have to gulung tikar and tutup kedai - roll up the mats and close shop.

After almost five years of the public being treated to the lifestyle of one who was once the most powerful man in the country, the end was inevitable.

The drama that unfolded at the High Court five years ago had all the hallmarks of unrestrained and uncontrollable power. As each witness had their say before the judge, the documents that were adduced resulted in “oohs” and “aahs” when the media reported them contemporaneously in news portals or in newspapers the following day.

The evidence showed that the course of the exercise of this was neither intricate nor perplexing. It was straightforward. Money meant for a different purpose was diverted for personal use.

These accusations were supported by credit card bills, telephone messages, and the paperwork on the transmission of millions of ringgit on instructions from a third party whose mysteriously and anonymous identity was revealed to the court.

From the purchase of diamonds to a million ringgit being spent on a hotel stay, the details were peeled as the accused could only sit and hear, and on occasion, use the mobile phone to check the state of his hair which also showed a frail face.

But when this was questioned by the judge and consequently reported by the media, they were told: “If they want to be the fourth or fifth estate, they shouldn’t act like estate people.”

An act of anger for reporting the truth? It was debatable and I wrote a scathing retort.

Game, set, and match

But all this drama was before the conviction. What followed were extrajudicial issues that made the headlines.

Impropriety, conflict of interests, and other unfounded claims were circulated and the judge who convicted Najib became the target of a smear campaign.

The accused had another bite at the cherry - this time at the Court of Appeal - and the three judges affirmed the decision of the court below without batting an eye. The trial judge had based his decision on the facts before him, nothing more.

This was followed by more drama when the case came before the highest court in the land - the Federal Court.

A change of lawyers, a last-minute plea for an extension of time which was turned down, and the rest, as they say, is history.

On Friday, it was the finale. A review of that court’s decision and the verdict was 4-1 for the prosecution.

It was the last-chance saloon - game, set, and match.

Oh, not that fast. Because of one dissenting judgment, the door is open, says the lawyer.

Yes, it is often said that two lawyers can give three different opinions. But, as an American lawyer said in jest - legal opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has one!

So, a review on a review is on the cards. What happens if it fails? Another review?

The court will have the opportunity to put an end to this charade which has already cost the state time, effort, and money.

The proverbial fat lady has sung.

And for the lesser mortals - the ordinary folks whose hard-earned money was stolen and misused, we can take cognition that justice has been done and seen to be done. - Mkini

---

R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT,