Najib and Irwan’s IPIC case: a prosecution folly or persecution?

 

From Ashraf Abdullah

This decision by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Wednesday to grant a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) to former prime minister Najib Razak and former Treasury secretary-general Irwan Serigar Abdullah in the RM6.6 billion International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) case, is both a relief and a damning indictment of Malaysia’s judicial and prosecutorial system.

For six long years, these two men were subjected to a trial that never truly began, built on a case that was never ready, and carried out in a manner that raises serious questions about the rule of law, due process, and political motivations in Malaysia’s justice system.

High Court judge Justice Jamil Hussin, when making the decision, said he was using his inherent powers in allowing the DNAA, following the prosecution’s continued failure to produce documentary evidence since 2018. The delay, he said, was inordinate.

The IPIC case brought against the two men by former attorney-general Tommy Thomas, who was appointed by Dr Mahathir Mohamad when he returned as prime minister for a short period in 2018, stands as a striking example of prosecutorial failure.

From the outset, the charges against Najib and Irwan seemed to lack the basic groundwork necessary for a robust legal case. The prosecution alleged that RM6.6 billion in public funds were misappropriated, yet over six years, they repeatedly failed to produce the documentary evidence needed to substantiate these claims.

How is it possible for a justice system to permit such a case to proceed when the prosecution admitted they were not prepared? How is it possible that despite the failure to provide the relevant documents, the court had allowed the case to be postponed multiple times.

The argument frequently advanced by the prosecution – that key documents were “not ready” or “not available”- should never have been acceptable in a functioning legal system. This justification was used to seek multiple postponements over the years, leaving the defendants in a state of legal limbo.

This raises a fundamental question: should charges be brought against individuals before the prosecution has even assembled its case? The answer should be a resounding no, yet this principle seems to have been ignored entirely in this instance.

The delays in this case are emblematic of a larger malaise in the Malaysian judiciary, where high-profile cases often drag on for years, subject to endless procedural wrangling. For Najib and Irwan, this six-year ordeal was not just a legal issue but a personal nightmare.

And, this injustice extended beyond the defendants themselves. Those who provided significant sums to bail them, in this case RM1 million each, had their finances tied up for years, unable to reclaim their money due to the interminable delays.

The defence teams also bore a heavy burden, expending resources and time over years to combat a case that never reached a proper trial stage. This case represents a colossal waste of resources, undermining faith not just in the judicial process but in the very notion of accountability within the system.

The courts themselves bear responsibility for allowing this travesty to continue unchecked. Postponements were granted time and again, often on the prosecution’s flimsy claim that they needed more time to gather documents or prepare evidence. This raises serious concerns about judicial oversight and the willingness of courts to scrutinise the prosecution’s claims.

In short, it was purely a case of charging the individuals first and then to frame the case.

One cannot help but wonder whether the same allowances will be made for the defence? Would a defendant be granted repeated delays for similar reasons? The uneven playing field is glaring, and it points to a deeper structural issue within Malaysia’s judicial system – one that seems to favour the prosecution in high-profile, politically sensitive cases.

The spectre of political persecution looms large over the IPIC case. Najib, Malaysia’s sixth prime minister, has been the target of numerous legal actions since Barisan Nasional which he led, lost in the 2018 general election.

The timing of the charges against Najib and Irwan, coupled with the prosecution’s glaring lack of preparedness, raises legitimate questions about whether this case was more about political optics than genuine justice.

Was this trial initiated from vengeance? Was it a get-Najib-at-all-costs goal? Leave the political differences aside, these are uncomfortable but necessary questions that Malaysians must confront.

A well-functioning justice system depends on the integrity and competence of its prosecutors. In this case, the prosecution’s failure to present a coherent, evidence-based case over six long years is nothing short of disgraceful.

It is not enough to say that the prosecution was unprepared; those responsible must be held accountable for the immense damage caused by their incompetence or, worse, their complicity in a possible politically motivated trial.

The presumption of innocence, enshrined in Malaysia’s legal system, ensures that no one is subjected to trial or punishment without clear, substantiated proof of wrongdoing. Charging individuals without solid evidence not only risks punishing the innocent but also erodes public confidence in the judicial system.

Human rights advocates emphasise that legal proceedings with insufficient evidence violates international norms, such as those outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

These agreements highlight the right to a fair trial and protection from arbitrary accusations. When cases with weak evidence are brought to court, the system becomes a tool of coercion rather than a bastion of truth and accountability.

To uphold the rule of law, prosecutors must ensure that they only pursue charges when evidence meets the threshold for trial, respecting the fundamental dignity and rights of every individual.

The IPIC case is a cautionary tale of how a justice system can fail its citizens. For Najib and Irwan, the DNAA granted today is a bittersweet victory – an acknowledgment that the prosecution had no case.

But for Malaysia, this case is a stark reminder that the pursuit of justice must be guided by evidence, integrity, and fairness, not political agendas or prosecutorial overreach.

The question now is whether Malaysia will learn from this debacle or allow its justice system to continue down a path where justice delayed becomes justice denied and where justice itself is a tool for political machinations rather than a pillar of democracy.

The world is watching. - FMT

Ashraf Abdullah is a former group managing editor of Media Prima TV Networks.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT