Court rejects Najib's application for permanent stay in IPIC trial

Sunday 19 Jan 2025

KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 25): The High Court on Monday dismissed former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's application to "permanently stay" the criminal trial regarding International Petroleum Investment Co (IPIC).

High Court judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin said that there were no official applications filed by senior defence lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and that deprives the prosecution of a chance to reply.

"Regarding the application for permanent stay, there is no formal application. The prosecution should [be able to file an affidavit in reply]," he said.

Jamil made this brief ruling following Shafee's oral submissions asking for a permanent stay. This application usually applies to civil cases and rarely in criminal cases.

In this trial, Najib is accused along with former Treasury secretary general Tan Sri Mohd Irwan Serigar Abdullah of six counts of criminal breach of trust of over RM6.6 billion of government funds to IPIC.

Najib and Irwan were charged in 2018, but the trial has yet to begin six years on. This year alone, proceedings have been postponed three times since June, to provide time for the prosecution to get the documents in order, some of which are classified.

This has aggravated the defence, which has made an application for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) twice previously.

Besides the application for a permanent stay, Shafee on Monday had also made an application for a DNAA for his imprisoned client.

"[My client] is carpet bombed in the courts. [He is appearing] in seven different courts, [not counting] civil cases linked to the same issues. He appears virtually every week. [Even for the lawyers there is] great difficulty [...] to spend time with him in prison," Shafee said.

Irwan's lead defence counsel Datuk K Kumaraendran said that there are other documents — besides the declassified documents — which have yet to be served.

"The principle of fair trial is sacrosanct.[...] Without these documents I can't conduct a fair [defence] for my client. [The court] has been fair to the prosecution and they are still not prepared to carry on [with the case]," Kumaraendran said.

It has to be noted that the prosecution has not made any such application and has left it to the court to decide.

Jamil, however, has asked parties for further submissions on whether the court has inherent jurisdiction to grant a DNAA.

The High Court judge highlighted that there are three circumstances in law where a DNAA can be granted: when there is a summary trial, when the applicant is absent, and when the prosecution makes such an application.

None of these scenarios in accordance with the law applies in this case.

The court has taken a brief break, and parties are expected to submit on whether the court has inherent power to grant a DNAA when proceedings resume shortly.

Edited ByAniza Damis

Text Size