Najib S Then Lawyers Had No Plan B If Adjournment Denied Dpp Submits

---

The apex court hearing of Najib Abdul Razak’s review application to quash his guilty verdict and sentence in the RM42 million SRC International corruption case enters the fourth day.
The five-person Federal Court bench, headed by Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Abdul Rahman Sebli, is expected to hear rebuttal submissions from lead deputy public prosecutor V Sithambaram today.
Malaysiakini brings you live reports of the proceedings.
Proceedings stand down for short break
11.18am: The apex bench stands down proceedings for a short break.
Najib's then lawyers had no ‘Plan B’, DPP submits
10.29am: Deputy public prosecutor V Sithambaram submits that Najib Abdul Razak's then legal team - brought on board to take over from lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah for the SRC appeal hearing last year - had no "Plan B" if the application to adjourn the appeal hearing was denied.
The DPP says that the new legal team had prepared for the main appeal for six to eight weeks and read some 30,000 pages of the record of appeal, but the new lawyers were overly confident that the application for adjournment would be allowed, among others.
Among the grounds for Najib's SRC review application was that the previous apex bench had denied the former premier's application to adjourn the SRC appeal hearing for three to four months in order to help the new lawyers prepare for the appeal.
‘Discharging Shafee strategic move to adjourn SRC appeal’
10.15am: Deputy public prosecutor V Sithambaram contends that Najib Abdul Razak's discharge of lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and taking up new lawyers before the SRC appeal hearing last year was a "strategic move" to adjourn the appeal hearing.
"We say so because (law firm) Messrs Shafee & Co continued to act for the applicant in the 1MDB (main) case at all relevant times," the DPP says.
Lawyer Muhammad Shafee AbdullahThe former prime minister's RM2.28 billion 1MDB corruption case is still ongoing before the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
One of the grounds for Najib's SRC review application is that the Federal Court last year dismissed the former finance minister's bid to adjourn the SRC appeal hearing for three to four months to help the new lawyers to prepare for the appeal.
Najib changing lawyers pretext to adjourn SRC appeal: DPP
9.58am: Deputy public prosecutor V Sithambaram submits that Najib Abdul Razak had intended to adjourn the SRC appeal last year by changing lawyers at the last minute.
The DPP points out that since the former premier knew when he appointed his new solicitors, Messrs ZIST, that they would be seeking an adjournment, it would be foolhardy to discharge previous counsel from Messrs Shafee & Co, without knowing if the appeals would indeed be postponed, unless Najib's sole aim was to adjourn the appeal hearing.
"It is submitted that the applicant (Najib) had evinced an intention to adjourn the appeals at all costs on the pretext of the appointment of new solicitors, which the game plan backfired," Sithambaram contends.
‘Najib author of own misfortune in SRC appeal outcome’
9.43am: Deputy public prosecutor V Sithambaram submits that Najib Abdul Razak is the author of his own misfortune in the apex court dismissal of the former premier's SRC appeal on Aug 23 last year.
DPP V SithambaramThe DPP tells the present bench that before the appeal was to be heard last year, Najib had sought to change his lawyers.
"You already know the case is coming and you come to court (then sought a three to four adjournment of the appeal hearing but was refused). You are the author of your own misfortune.
"If this case (adjournment following last minute change of solicitors) is allowed, then every litigant can walk in (and use same excuse), a precedent would be set.
"Four months, then change lawyers, if not give (adjournment), then do not submit, that is holding the court at ransom," Sithambaram says.
Review application only for rarest of rare cases - DPP
9.24am: Deputy public prosecutor V Sithambaram submits that the Federal Court's power to review its earlier decision is not an infinite power under Section 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995.
He says it is limited to the "rarest of rare cases" to prevent injustice otherwise, he contends it would be "chaos".
DPP: ‘Ironical’ for Najib's then lawyer to not submit appeal
9.17am: Deputy public prosecutor V Sithambaram views it as "ironical" that Najib Abdul Razak's then legal team did not present submission during the former prime minister's SRC appeal hearing last year.
In countering Najib's SRC review against the previous apex court bench's dismissal of the appeal, Sithambaram points out that when the then legal team was not granted its application to adjourn the appeal hearing for three to four months, the applicant (Najib) did not submit as a result.
"They took it for granted that there would be an adjournment, that is not how it works, so the appellant cannot be misled that adjournment would be granted as of right," the prosecutor says, pointing out that it is within the province of the Federal Court whether to allow adjournment or otherwise.
Apex court convenes
9.14am: The five-person Federal Court bench chaired by Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Abdul Rahman Sebli reconvenes for the hearing.
Former premier Najib Abdul Razak enters the dock as proceedings begin.
Najib enters court
8.54am: Former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak is escorted into the apex court by officers from Kajang Prison.
The former finance minister is seen in the public gallery, awaiting for proceedings to begin.
Yesterday, during the SRC review hearing, lead defence counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah submitted, among others, that Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat should not have headed the previous apex court bench last year that heard Najib’s SRC appeal.
The lawyer claimed that this was because of a conflict of interest as her husband had posted an allegedly critical posting against Najib in 2018, just after the 14th general election.
Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan MatThe current panel also comprises Federal Court judges Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Rhodzariah Bujang, and Nordin Hassan, as well as Court of Appeal judge Abu Bakar Jais.
On Aug 23 last year, the previous five-person apex court bench dismissed Najib’s appeal and upheld the guilty verdict and 12-year jail sentence as well as the RM210 million fine against him.
Then on Sept 6, he mounted the review against that appeal verdict in the case involving one count of abuse of power, three counts of criminal breach of trust, and three money-laundering charges linked to RM42 million of funds from SRC.
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 in 2020.
Judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd GhazaliNajib claimed, among others, that it was because the judge 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 the 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 is Najib gets a full acquittal, has his appeal heard again 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 prime minister’s review also targets the previous panel’s three other decisions.
These are the decisions to deny his bid to adduce 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

---