PROSECUTORS today argued that they are not legally bound to supply copies of all their evidentiary documents, including witness statements, on the SRC International case to Najib Razak’s lawyers. 

Ad hoc prosecutor V. Sithambaram told the Court of Appeal that the request by Najib’s lawyers to sight the prosecution’s documents was not provided for under Section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

“In short, if they succeed, they would change the entire landscape on the production of documents at the pre-trial stage,” he said.

Yesterday, Najib’s lawyer Havinderjit Singh submitted the former prime minister’s appeal against a ruling by the high court, which had barred the defence from obtaining further documents on the SRC case from the prosecution.

Najib has been charged with 10 counts of money-laundering, criminal breach of trust and abuse of power over sums of RM42 million and RM47 million. SRC is a former subsidiary of 1Malaysia Development Bhd.

The matter in the appeals court today is one of four interlocutory applications Najib has made in relation to his SRC charges.

It was heard before justice Zabariah Mohd Yusof, who leads a three-member bench that includes Rhodzariah Bujang and Lau Bee Lan.

Present was Attorney-General Tommy Thomas and Najib. The former prime minister was dressed in a gray suit and did not speak throughout the today’s proceedings. 

Prosecutors told the court today that it has already delivered 31 volumes of documents amounting to approximately 6,500 pages, which it intends to use as part of the evidence for the prosecution.

The tranche of documents includes 26 witness statements. 

Defence lawyers had argued that statements recorded and documents collected during investigations under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009 and the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti Terrorism Financing and Proceeds from Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLATFPUA) must be supplied or delivered to them.

“This submission has no statutory basis on a reading of Section 51A of the CPC. The admissibility of documents is a matter to be determined at the trial and not at the pre-trial stage,” Sithambaram said.

“The country will go haywire if investigation papers are handed over to the accused,” he added.

Sithambaram said the documents listed under Section 51A are: a copy of the information report; any document that would be tendered as part of prosecution evidence; and a written statement of facts favourable to the defence.

The court may exclude any document delivered after the commencement of the trial, if it is shown the delivery was done in bad faith, he added. 

Najib’s lawyer Harvinderjit said the Court of Appeal should be prepared to set a precedent by its ruling.

“If prosecution is going to be haywired, as claimed by my learned friend (Sithambaram), that there is going to be tremendous change of law, so be it.” 

“It will be better to protect those presumed innocent, or an accused person who is presumed innocent, than to even consider the added obligations to the prosecution. And it is not even going to prejudice them. It’s just inconveniencing them.”

The hearing continues on Friday at the request of Najib’s lead counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah due to injuries sustained from his pet dog. – March 12, 2019.