THE apex court will decide on the status of the latest application by former prime minister Najib Razak to postpone his criminal trial tomorrow. 

The federal court will rule on an application to stay the trial pending a decision on a review application filed by Najib last week.

Najib wants to review the court’s decision on lifting the stay on the trial.

The court, led by another panel of judges, will decide whether to review last week’s decision and also whether to postpone the trial until after the review is concluded.  

A review application is a review of the court’s decision. It is not a judicial review, which is a review of an administrative decision. 

A review application carries a higher burden on the appellant to prove its case. It can be filed after the appeals process has been exhausted, usually after the appeals have been taken up two tiers of the court.   

On Wednesday, the first day of Najib’s SRC International trial, defence lawyers also filed a stay application pending another legal challenge that Najib’s criminal charges are not tenable. Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, who is presiding over the SRC International case, overruled the stay application and proceeded with the trial.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court has yet to fix a hearing date for that challenge.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Richard Malanjum, who led the seven-judge panel in last week’s decision, is also leading another seven-judge panel to hear Najib’s three appeals on interlocutory matters relating to the SRC International case.

Today, the panel heard Najib’s lawyers, led by Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, argue on two interlocutory appeals – a gag order on the media and public from discussing Najib’s criminal cases, and on the attorney-general’s withdrawal of his transfer certificate on the SRC case.

The panel includes Chief Judge of Malaya Zaharah Ibrahim, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak David Wong, justices Ramly Ali, Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Idrus Harun and Nallini Pathmanathan. 

It also heard an appeal by Attorney-General Tommy Thomas against a court order to produce the letter of appointment of fiat prosecutor Sulaiman Abdullah.

On the withdrawal of certificate, Shafee and defence lawyer Harvinderjit Singh argued that Nazlan did not have the legal provisions to transfer the SRC International case to his court after the attorney-general withdrew the certificate of transfer. 

The lawyers argued that the prosecution failed to followed “procedures to a T” and that the entire retransfer was done without the mandatory legal requirements. 

Shafee said the withdrawal of certificate on February 7 at the high court meant that Najib should have been given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal, in relation to the seven criminal charges he faces. 

Shafee added that Najib should have been brought back to the sessions court to be re-charged.

Thomas told the court that the defence had no legal precedent to back their arguments, and pointed to three landmark rulings in 1976, 1979 and 1987 that allowed for Nazlan to permit the withdrawal of certificate and transfer the cases himself. 

Defence lawyers also argued that Nazlan had written several paragraphs in his judgment on their interlocutory applications stating that the public should not publish prejudicial materials relating to the SRC trial. 

Thomas said Nazlan’s words were not intended to be taken out and used as an order to the general public. 

Tomorrow, the panel will hear the defence’s argument that it had not been granted full access to investigation and other evidentiary documents. – April 4, 2019.