In relation to the four abuse-of-power charges, the prosecution argued that its duty was to show that Najib had a vested interest in 1MDB, which had resulted in his receipt of gratification.

It maintained that Najib’s conduct over the seven years from 2009 was not just someone who had a stake in 1MDB deals and transactions, but that he had taken steps to downplay his role when the embezzlement became a public scandal.

The prosecution pointed to instances in which Najib had tried to exert his influence, such as his phone call to former 1MDB chairman Tan Sri Mohd Bakke Salleh before a board meeting on Sept 26, 2009, regarding the company’s joint venture (JV) with PetroSaudi International Ltd (PSI).

The board had first learnt about the proposal on Sept 18, 2009, and had instructed management to carry out due diligence before committing to the deal. Bakke testified, however, that just before the board meeting on Sept 26, Low Taek Jho (Jho Low) passed his mobile phone to Bakke, and Najib — who was on the other end of the call — asked Bakke to “forget all the past” 1MDB transactions related to the Islamic Medium Term Notes (IMTN) bond issuance, which had resulted in a loss and to “firm up” the JV with PSI. This phone call, Bakke testified, had pushed the board to lock in the JV deal even though due diligence had not been completed.

Under the JV, 1MDB undertook an equity investment of US$1 billion, while PSI purportedly injected US$1.5 billion worth of assets into the JV. After the JV agreement was signed, however, PSI said its US$1.5 billion asset injection into the JV entailed a US$700 million advance for 1MDB, which meant 1MDB owed PSI the amount.

The 1MDB board had directed that US$1 billion be deposited into the accounts of 1MDB PetroSaudi Ltd, the fund’s JV company with PSI. Ignoring the board’s directive, 1MDB management transferred US$700 million from the US$1 billion to Good Star Ltd, on grounds that the company was a PSI affiliate, even though the company was actually associated with Jho Low, according to Bakke’s testimony.

Bakke also testified that the time constraints to approve the JV, coupled with the management’s blatant disregard of the board’s advice, and the split remittance had prompted his resignation on Oct 19, 2009, only a few weeks after his reappointment on Aug 11. He said he informed Najib of his resignation via a text message but received no reply.

Najib cautioned but kept mum

The prosecution also argued that Najib had “controlling” power over the company, which came under Minister of Finance Inc (MoF Inc), where the minister was the sole shareholder.

The testimony of former second finance minister Ahmad Husni was highlighted, where he said he had tried to warn Najib that some of the deals that 1MDB was proposing were not the wisest of choices.

In mid-2009, around the time when the federal government was looking to take over Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA) and turn it into 1MDB, Husni said he cautioned Najib that 1MDB should not be established without a “feasibility study”. Najib insisted, however, that he would continue with the plan.

According to Ahmad Husni’s testimony, he approached Najib again after getting wind of 1MDB’s proposed JV with PSI. He testified that he told Najib that 1MDB had no experience in the area of oil and gas and, if necessary, it made more sense for national oil company Petroliam Nasional Bhd to be roped into the JV instead.

On this occasion, Najib was said to have bluntly told him, “Husni, I don’t want you to get involve[d] and interfere [with] 1MDB.”

On another occasion, Ahmad Husni had reached out to Najib again via a private letter sent through Najib’s former principal private secretary, the late Datuk Azlin Alias, in which he voiced his concerns that 1MDB’s affairs could court controversy and affect Najib and his government. But his letter was met with silence, the court was told.

It is the prosecution’s case that Jho Low was Najib’s “mirror image” and that the two had worked hand in glove to siphon money out of 1MDB. During submissions, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Ahmad Akram Gharib said Jho Low was an omnipresent character, and that prosecution witnesses had attested to Jho Low’s presence in 1MDB and the influence he had over the running of the company as well as his relationship with Najib.

Prosecution lawyers cited The Edge Media Group chairman Tan Sri Tong Kooi Ong’s testimony, in which he had told Najib at a meeting at Najib’s private residence that Jho Low should be held accountable for the diversion of US$700 million to Good Star, and should face prosecution. Najib said nothing in response but instead showed Tong the door, the court heard.

Attempts at damage control

As news about the misappropriation of state funds and the extent of the scandal began to break in the media, the prosecution highlighted several testimonies that pointed to Najib’s attempts at damage control.

One cited was that of former Bank Negara Malaysia governor Tan Sri Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz saying that in July 2015, Najib had asked her to issue a statement stating that he had done nothing wrong in relation to his private bank accounts, where enormous sums of monies had been channelled from overseas. Zeti declined, saying she did not have knowledge of what had transpired in his accounts.

On the stand, Zeti said Najib had accepted her decision, but soon after their meeting, she received a call from one of Najib’s cabinet ministers who then made the same request for her to issue the statement absolving Najib. She said she gave the minister, whom she did not name, the same answer.

Prosecution lawyers also pointed to private meetings that took place before the 2016 Public Accounts Committee (PAC) hearing into the 1MDB debacle and the misappropriation of its funds. The meetings were said to be 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 (Shahrol and Bakke) were advised to not cause a ripple effect, to downplay the role of Najib and Jho Low. This is on evidence,” Ahmad Farid said.

The defence argued that the prosecution had painted a picture of Najib as the all-controlling power, where there was a “top-down” approach, with Najib calling the shots at the state-owned strategic development company.

The defence countered, however, that like any other company, 1MDB was governed by its memorandum and articles of association (M&A). Even though Najib as finance minister was the sole shareholder and chairman of the Board of Advisors (BOA), his lawyers argued that the Board of Directors (BOD) was in fact the “biggest organ” in a company and that it made the decisions, which it then “pushed” to the shareholder for his consideration.

“Najib did not appoint idiots to run the company, truly. [On the stand, the witnesses] virtually said they didn’t use their brains. They never confronted Najib to confirm [whether the instructions were indeed from him],” lead defence counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said during submissions.

The senior lawyer argued that the bulk of the 50 witnesses’ testimonies contained similar catchphrases such as “working in silo”, “top-down approach” and “Jho Low’s talking points”, leading him to think the statements were “tailored” to build a narrative against his client.

The defence had also tried to tear down the prosecution witnesses’ credibility, arguing that the testimonies were peppered with “terrible hearsay”, which was “calculated to be prejudicial” to Najib. They questioned the lack of direct evidence showing that any of the instructions were directly from Najib.

Citing Najib’s former special officer Datuk Amhari Efendi Nazaruddin’s testimony during the trial, Muhammad Shafee pointed out that on numerous occasions, he had lingering doubts as to whether the instructions given were indeed within Najib’s knowledge.

Amhari testified, however, that Najib’s then principal private secretary Datuk Azlin Alias would verify that Najib had authorised Jho Low to act and coordinate on matters involving 1MDB. Apart from Amhari, numerous other witnesses had testified over the six-year trial that Azlin’s comments and directions were directly from Najib himself.

“Where is the direct evidence to say that it has got to do with my client? They didn’t hear from Najib, [they are saying] that they heard from Azlin that Najib gave Jho Low authority,” surmised Muhammad Shafee.

The defence also countered that the witnesses were themselves corrupt, seeing as they received kickbacks from the theft of 1MDB funds, and argued that the management — particularly Shahrol — had colluded with Jho Low behind Najib’s back to initiate and perpetuate the crimes.

The prosecution countered, however, that their witnesses genuinely believed they were acting on the behest of the former prime minister and urged the court to look at both Shahrol’s and Azlin’s status in the overall scheme of things.

They also said the court had to bear in mind that all the transactions, throughout the years, went through without any major glitch.

On Azlin, Ahmad Akram asked how someone in his position and of his stature could defy or give orders other than those conveyed by his boss. “We submit he would never [do so] because he is in service to his boss. He cannot give instructions outside of that; otherwise, he would be in trouble,” he said.

On Shahrol, Ahmad Akram asked, “[Would] Shahrol do all these acts if not backed by the most powerful person, a heavyweight?”

The defence has also questioned the authorities’ “shoddy investigation” of the case, pointing to several gaps in the probe.

One example cited was that no statement had been recorded from Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Finance to ascertain whether the monies in Najib’s account were indeed a donation, as claimed by their client even though Malaysian authorities had gone to the Middle East but were unsuccessful in meeting the relevant parties.

Even if the transactions were suspicious, the defence said, financial institutions should have alerted Najib. They argued that it was perfectly “reasonable” for Najib, being a politically exposed person, to depend on both Ambank, which housed his accounts, and Bank Negara Malaysia to raise any suspicious transactions with him. However, no red flags were raised.

The defence also put forth the argument that Najib had used the monies in question for corporate social responsibility (CSR) purposes and not for his personal gain. These CSR programmes included donations to Umno branches when Najib was still party president.

Judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah had asked the difference between personal and political expenditure, as the defence argued that the CSR projects were for the benefit of the public.

Shafee countered that Najib did not use the money “to buy a private plane” or treat everyone to champagne celebrations in Las Vegas or New York. “My Lord, I have to use this word — it is against the pathology of corruption that a person took this money and spent it, not for personal use but for the benefit of the public,” Shafee argued.