NAJIB Razak’s conviction of abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and money laundering was a simple and straightforward case, Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, in the broad grounds of judgment, said.

Putting aside the personality of the appellant (Najib), she said the prosecution illustrated how the evidence was so overwhelming that at the close of the prosecution’s case, the trial judge was satisfied in law and in fact that all the ingredients of all the seven charges were satisfied.

“We have considered these submissions and find that the learned High Court judge (Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali) undertook a very detailed and objective analysis of the evidence to support his findings at the close of the prosecution’s case.

“In the circumstances, we fail to see how and where any of the learned trial judge’s findings leading to the ultimate finding that a prima facie case had been made out, are perverse,” said Tengku Maimun.

“In our judgment, the findings of the High Court on the defence are correct. In concluding that the defence failed to raise a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case, we find that the learned High Court Judge had undertaken a thorough analysis of the evidence produced by the defence.”

She said they were unable to conclude that any of the findings of the High Court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeal, were perverse or plainly wrong so as to warrant appellate intervention.

“We agree that the defence is so inherently inconsistent and incredible that it does not raise a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case,” she said.

“In the circumstances, and having pored through the evidence, the submissions and the rest of the records of appeal, we find the appellant’s complaints as contained in the petition of appeal, devoid of any merit.

“On the totality of the evidence, we find the conviction of the appellant on all seven charges safe. We also find that the sentence imposed is not manifestly excessive.”

The other judges on the five-man panel were Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim and Federal Court judges Nallini Pathmanathan, Mary Lim Thiam Suan and Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah.

Tengku Maimun also said they found nothing complex in these appeals.

“In the three appeals before us, the appellant challenges the conviction and sentence,” she said.

“We stated that counsel for the appellant, Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, impressed upon us with considerable fervour that these appeals concern strong serious points of law and fact.”

At the apex court, the Pekan MP had appealed to quash the conviction handed down by High Court judge Nazlan, who on July 28, 2020 found him guilty of having illicitly received RM42 million from SRC International Sdn Bhd, a former 1Malaysia Development Bhd subsidiary.

Najib’s lead counsel Teh had said last week that he would not be entering an oral submission after he failed to get the trial postponed to prepare for the case.

He also applied to recuse himself on the grounds that he did not have enough time to prepare. This, too, was denied by the court.

Najib next fired his new lawyers Messrs Zaid Ibrahim Suflan TH Liew & Partners, who had replaced Messrs Shafee & Co.

Tengku Maimun said Najib was well aware of the trial date before changing his lawyers, which led them to refuse the application of adjournment.

“While Najib was entitled to change his counsel, he did so mindful of the date of the appeals,” she said.

“He cannot then turn around and say, having changed them so late in the day and counsel having accepted the brief when they did, that new counsel and solicitors are not ready.”

To Najib’s claim that he was not given a fair trial, Tengku Maimun said it is not a case where the appellant was denied a right to submit as suggested by counsel.

On the contrary, she said, the learned counsel was invited repeatedly to submit but persistently refused to do so.

“In fact, we asked counsel on August 19 (Friday) if he would submit on Tuesday (August 23), which was the next date fixed for hearing,” she said.

“Hisyam Teh stated that he would not be submitting.

“We clarified whether this included even oral submission, and counsel confirmed that he would not be making any submission on any of the 94 grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal, even oral submission.

“We told counsel that he had at least three days to prepare (that is the weekend and Monday, August 22). He, despite this, and despite having asked for leave to file a written submission, took the position that he will not submit.”

Tengku Maimun said in the absence of any submission from the appellant, they turned their attention to the 94 grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal.

She said they had examined them carefully and in great detail, adding that in their view, they disclosed in essence, the following main complaints.

“Firstly, that the Court of Appeal erred in fact and in law by finding that the High Court judge had correctly found that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case on all seven charges,” she said.

“Secondly, that the Court of Appeal erred in fact and in law by finding that the High Court judge had correctly appreciated the defence. It was argued that the defence managed to raise a reasonable doubt on all seven charges.”

In conclusion, Tengku Maimun said, Najib’s appeals were unanimously dismissed and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Earlier this evening, Najib was taken from the Federal Court to Kajang prison where he begins his 12-year jail sentence. – August 23, 2022.