KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 26): The 1Malaysia Development Bhd-Tanore (1MDB-Tanore) trial was vacated on Thursday, to give the defence more time to further compile and prepare facts of the case, which is part of their objection to the prosecution's application to amend three of the 25 charges that former premier Datuk Seri Najib Razak faces.
Addressing the court, lead defence counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said that despite their best efforts, the defence team still required some time to compile the information regarding the circumstances, events, and facts of the case.
He said that his team has prepared a raw document consisting of what they think is relevant to the prosecution's application. However, the senior lawyer said there were still records of a few more witnesses that they had to comb through to complete the factual matrix of the case.
"We have produced this document which is a summary of what we think is relevant for Yang Arif (Your Honour) to decide. We have noticed [that] apart from people like [former 1MDB chief executive officer Mohd] Hazem [Abdul Rahman], [former Bank Negara Malaysia governor Tan Sri [Dr] Zeti [Akhtar Aziz], [former Ambank relationship manager] Joanna Yu and [Ambank branch manager] R Uma Devi, there are a few more witnesses that we have to go through to complete the factual matrix," Shafee told the court.
He then asked the court to vacate the trial date on Thursday, so the defence can complete their submissions.
Deputy public prosecutor Kamal Baharin Omar told the court that the prosecution had no objections to this and added that they also needed time to prepare their further submissions.
Kamal also added that the prosecution witness on standby on Thursday, Investigating officer (IO) Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Foo Wei Min, was present, although he had a medical chit (MC) as he was ill with gout.
Shafee then gave two dates in December as suggestions to make up for Thursday's missed trial date.
In reply, trial judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah said those dates were not suitable and asked parties to come up with alternative dates.
The judge added that he had also taken leave in December but was willing to come back to hear the case during the month.
Sequerah added that he will deliver his decision on the prosecution's amendment of charge application and the defence's objection to the admissibility of banking documents when the trial continues on Nov 6.
In this trial, the imprisoned former prime minister faces a total of 25 charges, comprising four charges of abuse of power (predicate charges) of receiving a gratification of approximately RM2.282 billion (RM 2,282,937,678.40) and 21 money laundering charges.
On Tuesday (Oct 24), the prosecution sought to amend one of the abuse of power charges and two of the money laundering charges.
In gist, the amendments involve the quantum in the charges to reduce the amount Najib is alleged to have received from 1MDB funds by RM5 million.
With the change, Najib is now accused of receiving gratification amounting to approximately RM2.277 billion (RM2,277,577,613.40) instead.
They were also seeking to lower the quantum in the 10th and 21st charges, based on the prosecution's 48th witness, investigating officer ACP Foo's testimony.
On Tuesday, the prosecution submitted that they were mending the charges "to make it absolutely clear [of] the amount that was credited into the accused AmIslamic Bank, which constitutes the offence in question".
The prosecution also asserted that the amendments to the charges will not prejudice Najib and it also does not affect the overall nature of the offence.
In his reply objecting to the prosecution's application, Shafee argued on Wednesday (Oct 25) that the prosecution could either maintain the three charges as they are, or drop those particular charges.
He also argued that his client was charged in a hurry in 2018, following the change in government.
Shafee said that the prosecution had known this since Foo finished his report in 2018, even before proffering the charges against his client.
As for the application on the admissibility of documents, it concerns the defence's objection to the prosecution tendering some banking documents through ACP Foo, as the maker of the documents.
The prosecution sought to tender the documents through ACP Foo because he was the officer who obtained the documents in the course of his investigation and not the respective bank officers.
However, the defence is contending that the maker of the documents — the bank officers — must be called.
The Edge is covering the trial live here.
Users of The Edge Markets app may tap here to access the live report.