NAJIB Razak’s new legal team will discharge themselves from acting for the former prime minister in the RM42 million SRC International corruption case if the apex court decides to proceed with the appeal hearing.

According to Malaysiakini, the lawyers from Messrs Zaid Ibrahim Suflan TH Liew & Partners led by Hisyam Teh Poh Teik will again seek to postpone the hearing, which is scheduled to take place next week.

The news portal said this was conveyed to the Federal Court during case management this afternoon.

The Malaysian Insight has contacted both Zaid and Hisyam for comments but has yet to receive a reply.

On July 22, the Federal Court rejected an application by the Pekan MP to postpone the hearing dates after he decided to change his line-up of defence lawyers.

With the rejection, Najib’s corruption case will go on as scheduled on August 15.

It was previously reported that Federal Court deputy registrar Wan Fatimah Zaharah Wan Yussof said parties must take necessary actions and prepare for the hearing of the appeal, which would be heard for 10 days from August 15-19 and August 22-26.

On July 25, Najib discharged Messrs Shafee & Co and took on Messrs Zaid Ibrahim Suflan TH Liew & Partners (ZIST) to represent him in his final appeal at the apex court.

Zaid was a former law minister and senator. He was previously an Umno member but was suspended in 2008, after which he joined DAP. 

He founded one of the largest firms in Malaysia, Zaid Ibrahim & Co, but quit the firm in 2008 and now practices under Messrs Zaid Ibrahim Suffian TH Liew & Partners. 

Shafee and his firm had represented Najib in the SRC International trial at the High Court and at the Court of Appeal.

The firm is still representing Najib at the ongoing 1Malaysia Development Bhd trial at the High Court.

In 2020, High Court judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali found Najib guilty of seven criminal charges for appropriating RM42 million of SRC International funds. 

The judge sentenced him to 12 years in prison and a RM210 million fine. The decision was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. – August 10, 2022.