IN July 2018, immediately after he was charged, Najib Razak proclaimed that he was innocent and confident he could clear his name.

Najib also said the charges against him were politically motivated. The trial date was then set for February 2019.

In July 2020, when the High Court found him guilty of the charges against him, he publicly said that this is the first court and the sentence is only decided by a judge.

Thus, he would appeal to the Court of Appeal and then to the Federal Court as soon possible, saying that he hoped the process could be completed as quickly as possible, because he wanted to clear his name.

In September 2021, in an interview with Reuters, Najib again publicly said he can prove his innocence, despite many entities and individuals around the world admitting guilt or paying hefty penalties over the 1MDB scandal.

He also said he was pushing for a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) into former attorney-general Tommy Thomas, so it could establish Najib’s trial would be fair.

As a former prime minister, he knows very well that respecting the rule of law is also one of the pillars of our Rukun Negara.

The rule of law clearly implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including lawmakers themselves.

Even he said so in June 2011 when he warned people intending to hold demonstrations that the country is governed by laws, which are applicable to all.

It is presumed that he is well aware that criminal cases in this country are regulated under the Criminal Procedure Code and all cases, whether civil or criminal, must also follow the regulations governing submissions of evidence as provided under the Evidence Act 1950.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of proof in criminal cases, while the standard required for civil cases is the balance of probabilities.

Anyone who is not happy with the decision by the court can file an appeal within a stipulated period of time to the higher court, in this case the Court of Appeal and Federal Court.

In 2015, despite the defence claiming that it was denied access to crucial prosecution evidence, opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim lost his appeal in the Federal Courts.

Anwar also protested his innocence and that the charges against him politically motivated.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister’s office then – when Najib was still in office – issued a statement praising the independence of the judiciary, saying the judges only reached their verdict after considering all the evidence in a balanced and objective manner.

Even the privately appointed prosecutor undertook a ‘roadshow’ to explain the court’s decision to the public thereafter.

In 2015, Najib was heaping effusive praise on the independence of the judiciary. What has changed in in 2022?

Why is Najib continuously trying to prevent the court from deciding on his case?

Does he still believe in the independence of the judiciary now he is before a judge?

As a former leader of this country, Najib should be well aware that any act of disrespect to the court will only tarnish Malaysia’s judicial system.

Furthermore, any disrespectful act will also stir social unrest.

To make matters worse, people will no longer believe in the court system.

Since the day when he was charged, Najib seems to have come up with 1,001 reasons to delay the process.

People are also asking why the attorney-general did not oppose Najib’s applications for each delay.

As Najib himself said in July 2020 upon the sentence by the High Court, he wants his appeal as quickly as possible because he want to clear his name.

Isn’t a speedy conclusion the best way forward for him? – July 28, 2022.

* FLK reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.