KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 2): The court should look at former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's conduct and actions, which the prosecution contends reflect his vested interest in troubled strategic development company 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).
The prosecution argued that in relation to the four abuse of power charges, its duty was to prove that Najib had an interest in the company which resulted in receipt of gratification.
The prosecution then proceeded to highlight several instances where Najib's actions were clearly to protect his interest.
Deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Akram Gharib argued that Najib was involved in 1MDB since its former iteration, Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA).
"[As the finance minister], he held the golden share in TIA. Then when it was taken over by the federal government [becoming 1MDB, he continued to have a say]. [He had a say in the] Islamic medium-term notes (IMTN) bond issuance [that] was not suspended but continued," Akram said on Wednesday.
This is in reference to the RM5 billion IMTN where TIA only ended up with RM4.3 billion.
Terengganu ruler Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin, who was the Yang di-Pertuan Agong then, had ordered TIA directors Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi and Tan Sri Ismee Ismail to suspend the issuance of the notes, following an evaluation.
However, witnesses have testified during the trial that the directors then met with Najib in his Langgak Duta residence where the ex-PM informed Shahrol and Ismee that he would discuss the matter with the Terengganu Sultan and asked them to go ahead with the bond issuance.
Akram also highlighted the infamous phone call to former 1MDB chairman Tan Sri Mohd Bakke Salleh before a board meeting on Sept 26, 2009.
Bakke testified that just before that meeting regarding the company's joint venture PetroSaudi International Ltd (PSI), fugitive Low Taek Jho (Jho Low) passed a phone to Bakke where Najib, on the other end of the call, asked the chairman to "forget all the past" 1MDB transactions related to the IMTN bond issuance and "firm up" the JV with PSI.
This phone call, Bakke testified, had pushed the board to lock in the JV deal.
Akram also highlighted the "meetings" which took place before the 2016 Public Accounts Committee hearing investigating the 1MDB debacle and the misappropriation of its funds.
The meetings were hosted by Datuk Seri Ahmad Farid Ridzuan, who was at the time in charge of 'image branding' for Najib. Both Shahrol and Bakke had testified about these meetings.
"They were advised to not cause a ripple effect, to downplay the role of Najib and Jho Low. This is on evidence," Akram told the court.
Prosecution: Najib had controlling power
The prosecution is now submitting at the end of its case on why Najib, who is accused of abusing his power and gratifying himself with US$620 million (RM2.27 billion), should enter his defence to answer the charges. The former finance minister also faces 21 money-laundering charges in this trial.
Akram went on to assert that Najib had "controlling" power over 1MDB matters, and this was evident from the testimony of former finance minister II Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah, who said Najib told him that he didn't want him to be involved in the company's matters even when Minister of Finance Inc fully owns 1MDB and the minister is its sole shareholder.
Another instance highlighted by Akram was former Bank Negara Malaysia governor Tan Sri Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz's testimony where she said Najib had asked her to issue a statement in 2015 to say he had done nothing wrong in his account, with regards to the monies that were channelled into his account.
Akram also tackled the defence's argument that the prosecution’s witnesses were unreliable, and he argued that many who testified acted with the belief that the instructions were at the behest of the ex-PM.
"The defence submitted that the credibility of most of our witnesses cannot be believed because they were either corrupt, they have an axe to grind, they are trying to save their skin...
"They believe they were acting on the behest of the accused. [They may] have their commands from others like Jho Low and the late Datuk Azlin Alias, who was Najib principal private secretary. But they believed that the instructions were genuinely from the then PM," he said.
Turning to Azlin, Akram questioned how someone with his position and stature would defy or give orders other than those of which were conveyed by his boss.
"We submit he would never because he is in service to his boss, he cannot give instructions outside of that, otherwise he would be in trouble," he said.
The defence had also argued that Shahrol had colluded with Jho Low to carry out the entire 1MDB scheme.
Addressing this, Akram said: "Will Shahrol do all these acts if not backed by the most powerful person, a heavyweight?
"You go and do things without the board's approval. At the end of the day, the transactions went through. Najib still said it was ok," he said.
The prosecution has completed its submissions. The defence will now reply, and that will wrap up the prosecution case, which has dragged on for six years.
Following this, trial judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah will then set a date to deliver his decision on whether Najib has to enter his defence or can walk free.