TODAY’S hearing of Najib Razak’s SRC International Sdn Bhd trial – its 42nd day – is delayed as defence lawyers will be at the appellate court in Putrajaya to withdraw a defective charge appeal.

The lawyers will withdraw the former prime minister’s appeal against the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s decision to reject his application to strike out seven charges for allegedly receiving RM42 million in SRC International funds in his bank accounts.

High court judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali on April 29 ruled that the defence’s claim that the charges were flawed was without basis and not supported by evidence.

Defence counsel Harvinderjit Singh told Nazlan yesterday that after the application, the defence will return to the high court to make its submissions on three matters.

The first is regarding the Facebook posts by Najib last week on a RM3.3 million credit card expenditure in Italy in 2014, which the defence is likely to argue are not sub judice.

The second is for a court order to overturn a Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission directive to AmBank to stop giving Najib information on his accounts, which the lawyers have described as violating their client’s rights.

The third is on the validity of the witness statement by former AmBank relationship manager Joanna Yu. The defence said her statement, which it received in January, was different from the final statement she made earlier this month.

Yu, a much-anticipated witness, was examined at length yesterday by ad hoc prosecutor V. Sithambaram. The prosecution’s 54th witness told the court that despite being in contact with wanted financier Low Taek Jho, she never conspired with the Penang-born businessman to defraud SRC International.

She testified that she contacted Low when she could not get in touch with SRC International CEO Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil, who was the mandate holder of Najib’s accounts.

A mandate holder can carry out written instructions, but is not authorised to make withdrawals or sign cheques, the court heard.

On why she turned to Low, Yu said it was because he facilitated the opening of Najib’s accounts with AmBank in early January 2011, with the assistance of former group managing director Cheah Tek Kuang. She said Low has a record of expediting cash payments for Najib’s overdrawn accounts.

Asked by Sithambaram why she went to great lengths to cover for Najib’s overdrawn accounts, Yu said she took the initiative as it would not be seemly for a prime minister’s cheques to bounce.

She said Najib’s current accounts were constantly overdrawn, and that AmBank’s management was “uncomfortable” with the large deposits made.

She said she forwarded a request in 2014 to Low and Nik Faisal that Najib close his accounts due to a money-laundering red flag raised by then AmBank group managing director Ashok Ramamurthy.

Najib’s current accounts were closed on March 9, 2015. His credit cards were cancelled on March 11 the same year, following the payment of outstanding balance a day earlier.

His charges are linked to RM4 billion in loans issued to SRC International in 2011 and 2012, for which he is accused of receiving RM42 million in his personal accounts in 2014 and 2015.

Najib faces three counts of criminal breach of trust, three counts of money-laundering and one count of abuse of power.

The 66-year-old is represented by a dozen lawyers led by Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, while Attorney-General Tommy Thomas leads the prosecution.

The Malaysian Insight brings you today’s proceedings live:

5.20pm: Court is adjourned. Trial resumes at 9am tomorrow.

5.15pm: They are going through BlackBerry messenger chats Yu had with Low.

In one of the chats, Low relayed to Yu that, “He doesn’t want to close it”.

She says it was in relation to Najib not wanting to close his AmBank accounts that were constantly overdrawn.

5.05pm: Harvinderjit shows Yu an email Low sent her and others where Low made himself to be a special adviser to the Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA) and wrote of his intention to start an email chain about TIA transactions.

5pm: Harvinderjit talks Yu about a supposed chat group in which Low, Ung and her were in, where Low instructed Ung to remove cash from related accounts.

4.31pm: Harvinderjit questions Yu about her relationship with Yayasan Rakyat 1Malaysia (YR1M) former CEO Ung Su Ling.

He is referring to chats between Yu and Ung where they referred to someone known as “our friend”.

Yu says “our friend” could be referring to Low or Terence Geh as it was in reference to 1MDB transactions.

4.30pm: Court is in session.

4.15pm: Court is in recess.

3.43pm: She tells the court that there was a lawyer present at AmBank when Bank Negara Malaysia officers came to her office.

She says she left AmBank in 2015. She says she was asked by the bank to leave because of the heat the bank was taking.

She begins to explain that she took AmBank to court, but Sithambaram interjects, saying she cannot disclose information about her case because she had signed a non-disclosure agreement.

3.27pm: Harvinderjit carries on with his cross-examination of Yu.

H: Each one of your chats with Jho Low was when you couldn’t get to Nik Faisal?

Y: It may not be so.

Harvinderjit moves on.

H: Can you read your witness statement and confirm with me that Nik Faisal was uncontactable?

Y: It doesn’t say that here.

H: So, you didn’t say he was uncontactable.

Y: No.

Yu says the words in her statement were written by her on a computer. She says the initial draft of the witness statement does not tell the whole story.

3.26pm: Things get heated between Sithambaram and Harvinderjit. Sithambaram objects to Harvinderjit’s line of questioning.

H: Well, if you want to be pedantic about it, then okay.

S: You are pathetic.

H: I’m sorry.

S: I said, you are pathetic.

Nazlan reprimands Sithambaram over his choice of language.

3.18pm: Yu is verifying her chats with Low regarding the current accounts.

3.16pm: The DPP rises to tell the judge that perhaps, Harvinderjit should go easy on the witness.

Harvinderjit says: “I’ve tried the easy way. Now, I have to go the hard way.”

Nazlan tells the witness to answer with a yes or no, or agree or disagree. He tells her that she has the right to clarify herself later, during re-examination by the prosecution.

3.09pm: Harvinderjit: You took instructions from Jho Low and carried them to Nik Faisal. Agree or disagree?

Yu: No. they were in contact with each other.

H: Do you agree that you were getting actual instructions from Jho Low, although you needed written instructions from Nik Faisal?

Y: We only act on written (instructions). We can only act on written (instructions).

H: I’m not asking you that. I’m telling you that you took instructions from Jho Low, and sent them to Nik Faisal?

Y: No.

H: Were there letters drafted by you on behalf of Nik Faisal and sent to him to sign?

Y: Yes.

She explains that she helped draft the letters for Nik Faisal, as he did not know how to do so. He would always go through them and sign them, she says.

3.05pm: Harvinderjit asks Yu to clarify her statement.

H: Is it your position that in relation to the accounts, you did not follow the instructions of Jho Low. Yes or no?

Y: I did follow when he said “Don’t let the cheque bounce”. That was it.

H: For these four accounts, you continuously followed instructions from Jho Low. Agree or disagree?

Y: I don’t get your question.

H: Jho Low, on numerous occasions, instructed you to email Nik Faisal. Did you comply?

Y: Yes.

Harvinderjit suggests that Yu was the liaison between Low and Nik Faisal. She says they did not need her to be a liaison.

2.56pm: In her statement yesterday, Yu said she met Low in 2010, and Najib was directly involved in 1MDB. But in the draft, she said Najib was chairman of 1MDB’s board of advisers.

Harvinderjit asks her why she changed her statement. She says she did so because she wanted to be specific.

2.53pm: She is asked about her statement recorded by MACC. She is shown the first draft of her witness statement in January.

They go through the differences between the draft and the statement that she signed and read in court yesterday.

2.49pm: Yu takes the stand. Harvinderjit begins his cross-examination.

Yu is asked if she met anyone in the past 24 hours to discuss the trial. She says no.

2.46pm: Judge Nazlan makes his decision on the second application. He says the investigation is no way affected if documents are given to the defence. He says MACC should not prevent the bank from providing Najib with copies of his account and statements.

On the third application, Nazlan overrules the prosecution’s objection to Yu’s statement.

12.51pm: Nazlan said he will make his decisions after lunch. Court breaks for lunch and will continue at 2.30pm.

12.17pm: The third application for the day is on the validity of the witness statement by former AmBank relationship manager and current witness Joanna Yu.

Her statement, which the defence received in January, differed from the final statement she made earlier this month.

Sithambaram argues that the statement with her signature is the one they should go by.

12.12pm: Shafee said they shouldn’t be stopped from doing their homework on the case.

Nazlan said he will hand down a decision after lunch.

11.58am: Sithambaram said the investigation in this case isn’t over yet.

11.55am: Nazlan asks what’s the MACC’s position if the defence requests more documents.

Sithambaram said they just want to see what the defence is requesting. The judiciary shouldn’t interfere in investigations, he said, although the defence argues that the investigations are over.

11.39am: Harvinderjit Singh accuses the prosecution of a concerted effort to scuttle the defence’s case. He said that there is no provision where it can deny an account holder the right to his account.

Harvinderjit is asking for the AGC to prepare a letter that states that the defence doesn’t need to obtain MACC’s approval before obtaining Najib’s account statements.

11.37am: Sithambaram said this is not the forum to seek documents if they’re going to be used as part of this trial.

The application should be directed at the MACC, not the court.

11.35am: Sithambaram said AmBank in a letter dated May 15 this year, refused a request from Najib for specific documents.

AmBank refused to provide the documents before going through MACC’s vetting but the documents were eventually furnished to the defence.

11.33am: Shafee argues that the MACC has to give clearance before Najib can get his bank statements.

Shafee cites an example of MACC delaying a request for past statements until it was compelled by the court to give them the statements.

11.30am: Shafee makes the second submission for the day which seeks to obtain a court order to overturn a Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission directive to AmBank to stop giving Najib information on his accounts, which the lawyers have described as violating their client’s rights.

11.27am: Thomas tells the judge that he will make a formal application in writing if so required.

Nazlan said it would be better to make a second application in writing as to clearly define what the prosecution is seeking. Thomas agrees.

11.25am: Nazlan asks whether the prosecution wants the judge to consider contempt.

Thomas said they are only seeking an apology and the undertaking.

11.22am: Nazlan is seeking clarification as to what ruling the prosecution requires. He said there needs to be basis for any wrongdoing.

Tommy replied that they are seeking an apology from Najib and an undertaking to stop his Facebook posts about the trial.

Shafee argues that the application is vague as the prosecution has not identified what is sub judice about his client’s statements.

11.20am: Court is in session. Nazlan will hear the submission from the defence on Najib Razak’s Facebook statements last week. – July 23, 2019.