THE Federal Court today dismissed all three of Najib Razak’s appeals on interlocutory matters related to his SRC International case.

A seven-judge panel, led by Chief Justice Richard Malanjum, also ruled in favour of Attorney-General Tommy Thomas by allowing his appeal against a court order to show the appointment letter of fiat prosecutor Sulaiman Abdullah.

The court ruled against the three interlocutory appeals – a demand for evidentiary and investigative documents from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, including witness statements; the legality of the SRC International case transfer to the high court following the attorney-general’s withdrawal of his transfer certificate; and a demand for gag order on the media and public from discussing Najib’s criminal cases.

Today’s ruling was in relation to the Court of Appeal’s decision on March 21.

The panel, which ruled unanimously on all four decisions, also included Chief Judge of Malaya Zaharah Ibrahim, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak David Wong Dak Wah, and justices Ramly Ali, Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, Idrus Harun and Nallini Pathmanathan.

Leading the prosecution was Thomas, who was flanked by ad hoc prosecutors Gopal Sri Ram, Sulaiman and V. Sithambaram, and deputy public prosecutor Akram Gharib.

Najib was represented by a dozen lawyers, led by Muhammad Shafee Abdullah.

The former prime minister, dressed in a brown suit, appeared calm in the dock during the hearing. He did not speak to reporters afterwards.

“We are ready to proceed with the trial on Monday,” Sithambaram told the media.

Najib’s SRC International trial began on April 3, after it was postponed from its original starting date, February 12, due to the interlocutory appeals.

The attorney-general presented a copy of Sulaiman’s appointment letter to the defence three days after the Court of Appeal ordered him to do so.

“The court ordered copies of the letter to be returned,” said deputy public prosecutor Izzat Fauzan when asked if the ruling today was academic.

On the withdrawal of the transfer certificate, the panel decided that the attorney-general was at liberty to have issued the transfer under Section 418 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and he was entitled, on abundance of caution, to withdraw it.

Thomas had brought to the attention of high court justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali that as a result of the withdrawal, the judge had two options – he could order a discharge not amounting to an acquittal and send the case back to the original court, or he could act on his motion, also known as suo moto, and have the case transferred back to the high court.

The panel ruled that there was no prejudice because both parties wanted the case in the high court.

On the request for investigative documents, the panel ruled that it is satisfied that the prosecution has supplied the documents as required by law, and that the defence is not entitled to further documents at this stage.

The prosecution is only required to supply the defence with documents intended to prove its case.

The panel held that Parliament has passed Section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code to regulate the documents required to be supplied to the defence before trial.

The defence had demanded access to the prosecution’s entire investigation file, including statements of witnesses and documents seized, claiming that certain documents are automatically admissible under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act, and Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act.

The panel ruled that a gag order is not required on the grounds that Malaysia has abolished jury trials, and there can be healthy discussions on both sides as the accused is allowed to present his side of the story.

If the accused feels slighted, there are other avenues available to him, mainly defamation suits or contempt of court proceedings that he can undertake against anyone.

“Also, more importantly, they applied for a gag order on the whole world, not against any particular person,” said Sithambaram.

“A court will not grant an order that cannot be enforced. They said it’s against the foreign press and all that. They would need to be able to enforce it, otherwise, it would be meaningless.”

Malanjum commented on the behaviour of lawyers in the case.

“I hope the temperature will be tampered down, the use of certain words that are not so good by certain young lawyers… the use of words like redneck.”

Shafee, addressing the court, said the defence is still waiting for word on a hearing for its review application relating to a March 27 decision by the Federal Court to lift the Court of Appeal’s stay on the SRC International trial.

Malanjum, who will retire on Friday, noted the request. – April 10, 2019.