PUTRAJAYA (Feb 28): The Federal Court on Tuesday (Feb 28) reserved its decision over a review application by Datuk Seri Najib Razak over his conviction and 12 years’ jail sentence and RM210 million fine imposed on him in relation to SRC International Sdn Bhd.
A five-member bench led by Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Datuk Abdul Rahman Sebli, together with Federal Court judges Datuk Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Datuk Rhodzhariah Bujang, Datuk Nordin Hassan and Court of Appeal judge Datuk Abu Bakar Jais, indicated that the bench was not in a position to decide on Tuesday.
“Parties will be notified not later than March 31, on the decision,” Abdul Rahman said.
On Aug 23, 2022, Najib had been sent to Kajang prison to begin serving his jail sentence after a previous five-member Federal Court bench led by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, upheld the Court of Appeal and High Court decision that the former Pekan MP was guilty of the crimes for which he was charged in the SRC case.
Najib was found guilty of three counts of criminal breach of trust, and another three counts of money laundering of RM42 million of SRC funds between Dec 26, 2014 and Feb 10, 2015. He was also convicted of abuse of power over the approval of a total of RM4 billion in loans in August 2012 and March 2013 by Retirement Fund Inc (KWAP).
The Edge is given to understand that justice Ong is due to retire before March 31. Judges face the maximum retirement age of 66 years and six months under the Federal Constitution.
Earlier, the bench heard submissions from Najib’s lead counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and ad hoc prosecutor Datuk V Sithambaram.
Also present in the public gallery were Najib’s wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor and his daughter Nooryana Najwa Najib.
Earlier, Shafee in his reply to the prosecution’s submission told the bench that justice had not been done in the Federal Court appeal hearing last August and that his client had not been provided with the right to defend himself by a competent counsel.
He added that it was not Najib’s fault but the fault of his (then) counsel (Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik) and solicitors (Messrs Zaid Ibrahim, Suflan TH Liew and Partners (ZIST)).
Najib not to be blamed at all
“Najib is not to be blamed at all. This is the case where the final nail was plunged (by the bench) on Najib because he was not allowed an adjournment,” he said, adding that this five member bench led by Abdul Rahman is seized with the jurisdiction in allowing the review.
He added the right to a fair appeal or trial was not granted and this court should rectify this mistake before it gets worse.
“This (apex) court must grab the jurisdiction in order for the public to view and gain confidence that the real appellate court would not compromise on the issue of justice,” Shafee said.
For the past six days of the hearing of the review, Shafee had been focusing on Tengku Maimun’s bench failure to grant an adjournment to Hisyam as a breach of natural justice and that the previous bench had not dealt with 94 grounds of appeal as among reasons for the review.
The senior counsel had also pointed out that the bench led by Tengku Maimun had treated the former premier’s appeal like a judicial review and not a re-hearing of the appeal in a criminal case.
This had resulted in the previous bench only addressing the defence grounds in only three paragraphs in the eight page judgment that upheld Najib’s conviction and sentence.
Sithambaram in his brief reply said it was not right for the defence to accuse the Tengku Maimun bench of not wanting to hear then King’s counsel Jonathan Laidlaw to handle the appeal, as it was ZIST who had withdrawn the appeal in July 2022 after the new solicitors took over.
However, Shafee countered by saying that Najib had affirmed in his affidavit filed on August 22, that he wanted to continue with having Laidlaw and the former premier claimed that he had been misled by his previous solicitor to drop the appeal.
This led Judge Nordin to ask Shafee whether this was the case, as in the withdrawal application ZIST wrote that it had acted on instructions from the client (Najib) to withdraw Laidlaw’s appeal.
Shafee: Najib had replied in the affidavit that the withdrawal was without his authority and consent. I cannot say what ZIST was thinking about.
Nordin : Are you suggesting ZIST is not telling the truth?
Shafee: I see eye to eye on Hisham. He is one of the best counsel I know. I cannot say the same about ZIST.
In the morning, Shafee revealed that Zaid, along with two other ZIST lawyers Liew Teck Huat and Rueben Mathiavaranam and also Hisyam over their purported handling of Najib’s appeal.