KUALA LUMPUR (May 30): Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak kept some of the 'Arab donation' monies after the 2013 general election, as a 'contingency' to thwart opposition efforts to topple the government under his leadership, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission investigating officer (MACC IO) Nur Aida Arifin told the High Court on Thursday.
Najib, who was also the finance minister at the time, told the MACC this when his statement was recorded back in 2018, according to Nur Aida.
The IO was responding in court to deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Ahmad Akram Gharib's query on whether the funds in Najib’s accounts were used for political gain.
Akram: Part of Najib's defence is that he received the [alleged Arab] donation. For the funds that were not used, he [claimed] he had returned them, and he kept some of the monies as a contingency for any 'extraordinary' incidents such as Sept 16, when Barisan Nasional (BN) lawmakers could jump ship to the opposition. So, were the funds used for his political gain?
Nur Aida: Yes.
'Sept 16' refers to the 2008 incident, when then opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim claimed that he had sufficient support from government lawmakers to topple the then BN government. However, this did not transpire.
Najib also told the MACC that although he disagreed with the approach of 'buying support', he had to prepare for such eventuality should it occur, according to Nur Aida. And when there were no such threats, Najib told the graft-busters that he had returned the funds to the Middle Eastern 'donor', the IO added.
The prosecution has maintained that the funds were not donations but misappropriated from 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB). From the US$680 million (RM3.20 billion) Najib received, US$620 million was returned to the sender, Tanore Finance Corp. Tanore was linked to fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho, who is better known as Jho Low.
During re-examination on Thursday, Nur Aida also affirmed that Najib was the ultimate decision-maker in 1MDB, despite the defence's argument that the management had hoodwinked the then prime minister.
Akram: You were asked about Jho Low and the management's behaviours, which were 'red flags'. Did Najib take any action to stop or prevent this?
Nur Aida: No.
Akram: Who had power to fire members of the management?
Nur Aida: Najib.
Akram: Who was the ultimate decision-maker?
Nur Aida: Najib.
The DPP also asked about the defence's argument that the signatures on some documents did not necessarily match Najib's.
Akram: Were there any reports by Najib to the authorities — the police, MACC, central bank or Securities Commission Malaysia — that his signature was forged? Until today?
Nur Aida: No.
Previously, the defence contended that it was not Najib's signature on five documents for the approval of a US$975 million term loan facility for 1MDB Energy Holdings Ltd from Deutsche Bank — arguing that discrepancies in the documents were pivotal to the fourth abuse of power charge against the former prime minister.
The IO had asserted that although there were some discrepancies in the signatures, the documents were approved by Najib in his capacity as the then finance minister.
In this trial, Najib faces four counts of abuse of power for using his position as the then prime minister, finance minister, and chairman of 1MDB’s board of advisers to receive gratifications worth US$620 million. He also faces 21 money-laundering charges.
The trial before judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah continues.
Read also:
Zeti: 80% of AmBank's wrongdoing was during tenure of former MD Ashok Ramamurthy
After six years, prosecution finally wraps up its case in 1MDB-Tanore trial
1MDB-Tanore trial: Defence done with cross-examination of MACC IO
Najib's lawyer disputes authenticity of his signatures for 1MDB Energy's US$975m loan