Najib’s SRC DNAA: justice delayed, system derailed

 The granting of a DNAA in Najib Razak’s SRC money laundering case raises serious questions about selective justice, prosecutorial consistency, and political memory.

From Walter Sandosam

Najib Razak was recently granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) from his final criminal case involving SRC International Sdn Bhd funds.

Records show that the trial had stalled since 2019 for an offence allegedly committed in 2014.

What, then, is the taxpayer paying for, given this unbridled display of ineffectiveness, especially when one was fully aware that documents to be submitted as evidence are involved in another case?

The excuse that evidence cannot be retrieved as it is “in use” in another court lacks merit.

Surely this amounts to an abuse of the judicial process. It places undue stress on the one charged, more so when faced with numerous postponements.

The presiding judge was of the view that “the prolonged wait for trial has become a long haul for the accused person, denying him of a timely resolution”.

The defence requested a DNAA and it was granted.

Another interesting observation by the learned judge was that “the rule of law was applicable to prevent such a detrimental situation whereby an accused person is saddled with criminal charges with no outcome for an indefinite and indeterminate period”.

The judge should be commended for this comment, even if it has left some quarters frothing at the mouth over the outcome in this high-profile case.

There are also calls for a speedy retrial, including from a minister who recently resigned. Where was he in 2018?

Are these quarters blind to the law of the land, or are they like hound dogs going for the jugular?

However one defines it, a DNAA is, for all intents and purposes, akin to a Damocles sword (as another judge once put it) hanging over a person’s head. At any time, the case can be resurrected, and the charade continues, depending on the musicians in the orchestra pit.

Was the judge in the SRC case being fair to the accused in granting the DNAA, as requested by the defence, or could he/she have gone one step further?

For those who suffer selective amnesia, a refresher is in order as to what a judge can or cannot do.

In 2018, a sitting finance minister charged with purchasing property below market value from a person(s) with whom he had other dealings was not granted a DNAA, as requested by his defence team.

Instead, to the delight of his supporters and chagrin of many others, he was granted a discharge amounting to an acquittal (DAA). Even then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad was surprised!

All said and done, the outcome takes the day: a DNAA applied for, but a DAA granted. It now stands in our records for all time. In the process of justice, fact and perception are intrinsically connected.

There was no indignation from those now standing on virtuous ground and amplifying their so-called role in “exposing 1MDB and SRC”.

Perhaps they were intoxicated by the potent brew of the 2018 general election result, which not only brought elation but also blinded them to the past acts of those in their cohort.

One must recall the case of a former minister who was acquitted of charges under the Banking Act on the grounds that the evidence did not meet the “standards of the Evidence Act”. Yet there were no calls for appeal.

Some have justified that action, which involved a breach of the law, as an instance of “the end justifies the means” in terms of what was subsequently uncovered. If that is so, let’s not crow on “principled” behaviour.

A leading bank now has to pay damages for its role in this cavalier episode.

The most recent acquittal by the Court of Appeal of a politician on CBT charges reflects the work of the deputy public prosecutors in preferring charges, given the comments made by the court on whether there was a crime to begin with.

It is most saddening that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s chief has apparently forgotten, albeit inadvertently, that the MACC has no prosecutorial powers. Azam Baki should be refreshed on the limits of his domain and not pre-empt the DPP by announcing that an appeal will be filed.

Perhaps that is why the extension of his appointment has been termed “unwelcomed” by some critics.

It appears our judicial process is also in a quandary, to say the least, especially with the Bar Council having to step in over issues concerning the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).

This is most damaging as some quarters compromise on the concept of the separation of powers.

From a broader perspective, the individual actions of the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the public prosecutor, and the MACC chief commissioner are cause for concern.

This government was ushered in on the platform of governance reform. It is lagging behind badly.

There is a lack of inertia on the Political Funding Bill, which was originally mooted by the pre-2018 government but dismissed by those now in the government. The separation of the roles of AG and the public prosecutor, and the process of appointing an independent top graft buster (so that he is not just another civil servant), weigh heavily on this unity government’s report card. - FMT

Walter Sandosam is a past member of MACC’s independent operations review panel.

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