PUTRAJAYA (Oct 21): Imprisoned former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was allowed to deliver an impassioned statement in open court on Tuesday during the start of submissions in his 1Malaysia Development Bhd-Tanore (1MDB-Tanore) trial before High Court judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah, accusing the prosecution of selective justice, double standards, and political motives.
Sequerah, presiding over the case, had initially wanted Najib’s lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah to read out the statement on his client’s behalf.
However, Shafee said that there had been precedent in previous cases where the accused had read statements to the court prior to submissions.
Najib was eventually allowed by Sequerah to read his statement after deputy public prosecutor Datuk Akram Ahmad Gharib said the prosecution had no objection to it.
Following is the full text of what Najib read out in court:
The difference between the prosecution of a politician and a political prosecution is not always noticeable, but that does not mean the two are indistinguishable. I hope that, by the end of this written submission, one will be able to distinguish between the two.
Imagine a public official receiving RM100 million into their offshore accounts. Or when a public official won the bid for a Picasso painting at an auction, all while still earning a monthly salary from a public body? What would happen if a public official openly defied the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s order? Or when a public official transfers US$700 million to an unverified account solely based on a BlackBerry Messenger message? What if the same public officials made a further transfer of US$330 million to that same unverified account? Suppose a public official signed away US$1.6 billion within 24 hours without knowing what it was for? Now imagine if a public official were to conceal the whereabouts of that US$1.6 billion. Or when a public official transferred out US$175 million without prior authorisation. Or when they received a US$200,000 ‘loan’ and a further US$800,000 into their offshore company bank account.
Who was that public official, and what would you think would have happened to them? That public official was not me. And about the consequences faced by those public officials? Nothing, because they are the witnesses testifying against me in this trial.
And how would you think their testimonies were treated? Pristine, 100% believable.
The successful bidder for the Picasso painting and recipient of the RM100 million was Jasmine (Loo Ai Swan), 1MDB’s lawyer (former general counsel). The individual who defied the King and transferred the US$700 million and a further US$330 million to Jho Low (fugitive Low Taek Jho) was 1MDB’s [former] chief executive officer, (Datuk) Shahrol (Azral Ibrahim Halmi). (Mohd) Hazem (Abdul Rahman), 1MDB’s subsequent CEO, was the one who paid US$175 million to a bogus company. The US$1.6 billion in 1MDB’s funds, ironically, was diverted by Azmi (Tahir), 1MDB’s [former] chief financial officer. And the public officer who received the total US$1 million from Jho Low was my own officer, (Datuk) Amhari (Efendi Nazaruddin). Collectively, they were all regarded as credible witnesses against me and without any personal motive for self-preservation. Surprise, surprise, despite such stark revelation and confirmed misconduct, none of them has been charged. It’s as if breaking the law has no consequences.
In addition to all that, these same public officials have admitted to carrying out Jho Low’s secret plans and talking points through unofficial channels and have subsequently deleted most of them. In court, they asserted that whatever came from Jho Low originated from me, and that any misconduct they had committed was attributable to my purported instructions.
Despite them going against the board’s directions, taking unauthorised decisions, making unauthorised payments to the tune of billions, and accepting illicit rewards, this court could not find any reason to doubt them or their credibility as witnesses. For as long as they could testify against me, nothing they could ever say, admit to, or even do, however questionable, shocking, or unbelievable, could affect their trustworthiness.
After reading this submission, it should become apparent that the witnesses for the prosecution were selected not for what they had to say, but for what they were willing to say. It would also become apparent that the witnesses called by the defence were not selected by the prosecution, not because they had nothing to say, but rather because of what they would say.
It was not at all surprising that I was consequently charged and later called to enter my defence for the alleged execution of documents which were never produced in court. No, the documents were not lost; it was simply because the witnesses said so, and automatically, I had executed them. It matters not that the prosecution later admitted that no such documents existed, for so long as the prosecution witnesses said ‘Be’, and it is.
Additionally, I was even charged for complying with the wishes of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Cabinet's instructions to present the memorandum on the federal government's guarantee to the Terengganu Investment Authority for the Cabinet’s approval. Yes, I was alleged to have abused my official functions by fulfilling my official duty under the instructions of the then prime minister, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, and his Cabinet.
In another instance, the prosecution even preferred a charge against me simply for approving the board of directors’ earlier resolution — approvals for which I was statutorily mandated under the Companies Act to give.
It will also be discovered from this submission that my belief about the Saudi donations is not just some made-up fantasy. The SWIFT records recovered by the authorities show remittances made into my AmBank account by the Ministry of Finance, Riyadh, which were processed by the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority (SAMA), the kingdom’s central bank.
There are also confirmations from several Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers that, in November 2015, when they conducted their investigation in Riyadh, members of the Saudi royal family confirmed the political donation pledged by King Abdullah, as well as the verification of the four donation letters I received, and the donations remitted into my account. My conduct was consistent with the belief that the money remitted originated from the donation pledged by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Unlike the prosecution's witnesses testifying against me, I do not have any offshore accounts. Unlike Jasmine Loo or Amhari, I did not register any bank accounts through an offshore shell company; instead, I opened a bank account in my own name at a local bank in my country. Even the governor of Bank Negara Malaysia was immediately informed of the account's purpose: to receive donations from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
This submission will also demonstrate how the donations were spent; specifically, they were allocated to political and social welfare purposes. The payments were all made through cheques, with every sen recorded and accounted for. No million-dollar painting or swanky property was purchased from the funds I received.
It would be shocking to learn that, despite the media frenzy over the US$681 million, the entire sum has not even been proved to be traceable to 1MDB. Equally shocking is that I actually returned US$620 million to the source account because it had not been utilised. Before returning the unused donation, I wrote to the [then-]governor of Bank Negara, Tan Sri (Dr) Zeti (Akhtar Aziz), seeking Bank Negara’s approval for the return. I would probably be the only alleged ‘corrupt politician/money-launderer’ who returns the so-called gratification that he worked so hard to obtain, and probably the first in recorded history to have announced his ‘ill-gotten’ money to the governor of Bank Negara of all people.
Furthermore, a careful assessment of the entire evidence would demonstrate that the prosecution relies substantially on hearsay evidence, which was seriously objected to by my lawyers. I was informed that the prosecution has not even met the fundamental prerequisite for the admission of the prejudicial hearsay evidence; they have demonstrated no attempt to locate any of the witnesses, either Jho Low, (former SRC International Sdn Bhd CEO) Nik Faisal (Ariff Kamil), or (former 1MDB executive director of finance) Terrence Geh (Choh Heng). The MACC, as far as the record is concerned, has not mentioned any single attempt at locating them before inviting this court to rule that they cannot be found.
The prosecution was allowed to ignore the strict rules of evidence whenever it involved me. My lawyers informed me that in numerous other decisions, including those of the highest court, as well as those of Yang Arif, the prerequisites of proving the exception allowing inadmissible hearsay evidence into the trial must be strictly met by the prosecution.
However, given the prosecution's lack of effort, the leniency afforded here is jarring. The exception has been applied almost automatically. The prosecution here is reaping the benefits of its own failure; they have not even attempted to trace the witnesses, yet they receive an automatic judicial endorsement that those witnesses could not be found.
It is clear why the hearsay statements were sought to be admitted; it was to establish the truth of Jho Low’s, (the late Datuk) Azlin (Alias)’s (Najib's former principal private secretary), or Nik Faisal’s otherwise hearsay statements — that the instructions or directions supposedly came from me. At the same time, I have never had the opportunity to challenge their assertions in court, all while the prosecution insinuates which include unheard of joint criminal liability like the mirror image theory, that one’s actions were somehow legally attributable to me. None of us, the prosecution included, knows the exact legal basis for holding so or how it even applies, if there was such a legal basis to begin with.
The fact that I stand alone, charged for the wrongdoing of others, is telling of the kind of prosecution against me. The others are apparently kept out of the dock to sit in the witness box to testify against me.
Moreover, for every charge in a criminal court there is a single alleged offence. Why? Because it plainly tells the accused; this is what you are said to have done, this is when and this is how. Without that clarity, there can be no fair fight; only confusion remains. The highest courts of this country have never tolerated such drafting, but for me, the prosecution has the habit of asking courts to repeatedly bend those rules by misreading those cases. Each charge hides within others, forcing me into a guessing game.
How do I prepare a defence when the charge itself is a moving target? Am I to defend against one act, or four? Against one decision, or a string of them? Against one role, or every role I ever held? The charges are misleading and prejudicial. If duplicity of this nature is allowed, then no one — be it the prime minister or an ordinary citizen — can ever be sure of the charge against him. And without that certainty, there can be no justice. Also, who could forget the testimony of (Tan Sri Mohamad) Fuzi (Harun), the inspector general of police at the material time, who testified in this court that he was summoned twice by then-prime minister Tun (Dr) Mahathir (Mohamad), pressuring him to expedite the investigation and preferred charges as soon as possible. Isn’t this a blatant example of political interference in the investigation and prosecutorial process? Isn’t a fair investigation and fair prosecution part and parcel of natural justice which is a right provided by the Constitution for every citizen, regardless of his position? And if one is denied this right, isn’t the court the only place to seek justice and remedy?
As a former prime minister, I am not asking for immunity, far from it; I am only seeking equality — the right to be treated like any other individual who has come before the judicial system.
Your Lordship, I am mindful of what our former Lord President, Tun Suffian Hashim, once warned — that when courts bend to please those in power, they lose the trust of the people they are meant to serve. History has proven his words true. And so, Your Lordship, your decision will echo beyond me; it will define the kind of justice this nation keeps.
..........................................
Mohd Najib Bin Hj Abd Razak
Sept 26, 2025
Kompleks Penjara Kajang