THE sole dissenting judgment in the dismissal of Najib Razak’s application to quash his guilty verdict and sentence in the RM42 million SRC International corruption case has given the defence a new ray of hope, lead defence counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said.

The veteran lawyer said the minority dissent judgment by Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Abdul Rahman Sebli, who is also the panel chair, opened the possibility for the defence filing another review.

Shafee, however, stopped short of divulging more information on his next course of action.

“As a result of the minority judgment, there is an avenue that is open,” Shafee told a press conference today.

“There are cases that are reviewed not only once. As long as there is ground for a fresh review, we can seek one.”

Earlier today, the Federal Court rejected Najib’s application to review its guilty verdict, sentence and fine for corruption.

Judge Vernon Ong said there was no miscarriage of justice in the apex court’s hearing of Najib’s appeal in the SRC case last year. 

In delivering the dissenting judgment, Rahman pointed out that Najib was not given a fair trial during the first Federal Court appeal last year.

He said the former prime minister was not allowed to seek adjournment despite the latter discharging his solicitor Messrs Zaid Ibrahim Suflan TH Liew & Partners, led by former lawmaker Zaid Ibrahim.

Najib then suffered another setback during the appeal at the apex court, when his then and only defence lead counsel Hisyam Teh Poh Teik had applied to discharge himself from representing the former.

The Federal Court barred his request.

Initially, Najib had dismissed his initial solicitors for the SRC case, namely Messrs Shafee & Co, to make way for the appointment of Messrs Zaid Ibrahim Suflan TH Liew & Partners.

Rahman said Najib’s request to bring a Queen’s Counsel to represent him was also rejected and that the former Pekan MP was left to fend for himself after the Federal Court refused to grant his new counsel more time to make preparations.

He stated that Najib should have been given an adjournment, citing the latter’s new team of lawyers had only took charge three weeks before the final hearing.

Shafee took the positive from the dissenting judgment and claimed it was encouraging.

He also highlighted that Rahman had said in his judgment that the court had no power to stop a counsel from discharging himself.

He was referring to the apex court’s decision to turn down Hisyam’s request to withdraw from the case.

“It is not that Hisyam refused (to represent Najib) but he was honest and being responsible,” he said.

“He (Hisyam) was not prepared and, therefore, cannot do injustice to his client by submitting.

“If the counsel is not prepared, it’s as good as not having a counsel.” – March 31, 2023.