Najib seeking to nullify SRC International conviction


Alfian Z.M. Tahir

Former PM Najib Razak is seeking to nullify his conviction in the SRC International Sdn Bhd case and has instructed his legal team to adduce new evidence. – The Malaysian Insight file pic, June 7, 2022.

FORMER prime minister Najib Razak is seeking to nullify his conviction in the SRC International Sdn Bhd case and has instructed his legal team to adduce new evidence. 

Speaking to reporters at the High Court lobby, Najib’s lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah cited the alleged conflict of interest involving Court of Appeal judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, who is currently being investigated by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) over unexplained wealth in his bank account.

In July 2020, Nazlan – as a then High Court judge – convicted Najib of multiple counts of corruption for the misappropriation of RM42 million of SRC International Sdn Bhd funds.

MACC enquiries into Nazlan began after reports were lodged based on an article in the Malaysia Today blog that Nazlan had an unexplained RM1 million in his bank account.

Nazlan has denied the allegations and lodged a police report to this effect, citing Malaysia Today editor and blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin.

“We have already filed an application with the Federal Court. That application is supported by an affidavit from Najib and contained serious allegations that he did not get a fair trial in the High Court,” Shafee said.

He said SRC International was created by Maybank Investment Bank Berhad, a subsidiary of Malayan Banking Berhad (Maybank) with the purpose of conducting “advisory research”.

He said Najib’s legal team discovered that Nazlan was in Maybank during the relevant period.

Therefore, he said, Nazlan has actual knowledge of how Maybank was involved in the formation and structuring of SRC International.

“He was at one stage, (until he resigned) the general counsel and company secretary for the Maybank Group,” he said.

“Therefore, he could not have forgotten this, which means when he was told to sit, to take over from Justice Sofian (Abdul Razak), he should have told himself that he has something in this and he should have made a submission whether to continue or to recuse himself from hearing the case.”

Shafee said they discovered the RM42 million transferred into Najib’s account, which was part of the initial charges, was not from Kumpulan Wang Persaraan (Diperbadankan), but was part of a RM140 million loan facility given by Maybank to Putra Perdana Development.

“Justice Nazlan, the prosecution and relevant enforcement agency failed to reveal this, although the judge (Nazlan) would have had some knowledge of the loan facility given by Maybank,” he said, adding that Nazlan could have been made a potential witness in the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) case.

Najib was initially charged in the Sessions Court over the 1MDB case on September 20, 2018. At the time, the SRC International trial had not started.

Shafee said he wanted the apex court to hear the application to nullify the conviction before hearing Najib’s final appeal against his conviction in the SRC International case.

“If the Federal Court agrees with us, Nazlan’s ruling would be nullified due to a breach of the rule against bias,” he said.

“There’s a real danger of bias because the judge was equipped with knowledge of SRC International and 1MDB.

“He shouldn’t have heard the case. He should have disqualified himself.” – June 7, 2022.


Sign up or sign in here to comment.


Comments


  • What a game plan, applying the tarnishing the good reputation of a decent judge based on a one sided and paid blogger, then why didnt the accused acted with good faith to instruct the respective agencies at his disposal to investigate when 1MDB first surface by an independent investigative journalist and followed by an online news agency? He want to nullify his RM42 MILLION against RM1 MILLION, what cock and bull is that. What happen to the police report that the judge made? Did the thief file a police report then? No, all he did was to take the legal means to shut people mouth, see here where the different lies. The thief didnt want to explain in all honesty then and full of confidant he can sweep it under the carpet and remain in power.

    Posted 1 year ago by Teruna Kelana · Reply