This article first appeared in The Edge Financial Daily on January 9, 2020 - January 15, 2020

KUALA LUMPUR: Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak downplayed a shocking audio clip of Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor purportedly “advising” him on how to sort matters with 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) and Mubadala Development Co managing director Khaldoon Al Mubarak that was released by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), saying there was nothing wrong with him having a private conversation with his wife.

He told the press after his SRC International Sdn Bhd trial yesterday that “it was normal” for him to discuss these things privately with his wife.

“Conversations between my wife and I are private. You also speak to your wife. What’s wrong with that? That’s a right of every citizen to discuss as long as you don’t leak it to everyone,” he said.

He also said that he was not influenced by his wife because he made the final decision.

“It’s a normal thing. Everyone can give an opinion, but I make the decisions,” said the former premier.

Najib also denied he was scolded by his wife in the conversation, saying it was a normal conversation between a husband and wife.

He added that the release of these clips will have dire consequences on diplomatic ties between Malaysia and other nations as one of the leaked recordings involved conversations between Najib and parties from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), including UAE Crown Prince Mohammed Zayed Al Nahyan and Khaldoon.

“I was the sitting prime minister at the time this was done. This has effects on diplomatic ties with Malaysia and other countries. Why did they release the tape at this moment? This happened five years ago,” he said.

He added that this sets a dangerous precedent for future prime ministers as their private conversations can also be wiretapped.

“Wiretapping a sitting prime minister’s phone is very dangerous. It sets a precedent that all other prime ministers’ conversations will be wiretapped. Are you encouraging it?” he asked MACC chief Latheefa Koya.

Najib also questioned the timing of the release of the audio clips, claiming that this was done to coincide with the ongoing campaigning for the Kimanis by-election.

Meanwhile, Najib’s lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said that the audio clips are sub judice and is considering contempt action against Latheefa because the recordings involve the SRC, 1MDB and Riza Aziz’s trials.

“We are seriously contemplating a contempt action against the MACC and Latheefa. I think as a lawyer, although she refuses to admit it, she should know it’s contemptuous. Is MACC trying to influence the ongoing trial?” he asked.

Najib’s govt made it legal to wiretap, says lawyer

Meanwhile, Syahredzan Johan, a lawyer and political secretary to Iskandar Puteri member of parliament Lim Kit Siang, tweeted that it was Najib’s administration which introduced legal provisions — namely the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) and amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) — which allow interception of communication.

“You know what’s ironic? It was Najib’s government who introduced amendments to the CPC to allow for interception, listening and recording of communication in 2012.

“Yeah, Najib’s government made it legal for the government to spy on you,” he said.

Najib was prime minister from 2009 to 2018.

Syahredzan highlighted Section 116(c) of the CPC, which allows a public prosecutor to authorise a police officer to “intercept, listen to or record any conversation by communication”.

The section also enables the public prosecutor to “require a communications service provider to intercept and retain a specified communication or communications of a specified description received or transmitted, or about to be received or transmitted by that communications service provider”, or authorise a police officer to enter any premises and install devices for the interception and retention of specified communication.

Moreover, the evidence is admissible in court.

Similarly, Section 6 of Sosma states that a public prosecutor may authorise a police officer to “intercept or listen to any conversation by any communication”, and “may require a communications service provider to intercept and retain” specified communication.

In addition, if a police officer not below the rank of superintendent wants to intercept any conversation by any communication urgently may do so without the authorisation of the public prosecutor, although they would have to immediately inform the prosecutor.