PUTRAJAYA: Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak’s application to adduce new evidence in his SRC International Sdn Bhd case is intended to delay the progress and conclusion of the case, the Federal Court heard today.
Ad hoc prosecutor Datuk V. Sithambaram submitted that the application was filed to prolong the SRC proceedings for collateral purposes as the cumulative evidence now sought to be adduced by the former prime minister was available to him at the trial and in any event, was not relevant to the appeals before the Federal Court.
“My Lady, before the commencement of the trial in April 2019, everybody knew that the trial judge (Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali) was from Maybank. During the defence case, this was a burden issue. They could have brought it. But none was done at that point of time.
“Moreover, there has been no evidence of conflict of interest on the part of Justice Mohd Nazlan at the SRC trial as alleged by the applicant (Najib). The applicant had made malicious and frivolous allegations against the judge, who is unable to personally defend himself from these spurious allegations,” he said.
The prosecutor said this in the prosecution’s submission in the former prime minister’s motion to adduce new evidence in the SRC case in his bid to ultimately seek a retrial before a five-member panel chaired by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.
The other judges on the bench are Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim and Federal Court judges Datuk Nallini Pathmanathan, Datuk Mary Lim Thiam Suan and Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah.
Sithambaram also said that Najib’s bid was based on what certain individuals allegedly told the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), thus, the Apex Court should reject the request as the Pekan MP’s supporting affidavits are all based on hearsay evidence.
Najib’s additional evidence bid was supported by his affidavits over what three MACC officers and two bankers purportedly told the MACC during the SRC investigation.
“Najib’s affidavits showed that these alleged witnesses did not personally tell the appellant what they supposedly told MACC. Those witnesses’ statements are hearsay upon hearsay. They did not tell the appellant. The application is not a fresh evidence bid but camouflaged (as a fishing expedition into) the alleged conflict of interest on the part of judge Mohd Nazlan,“ he said.
The additional evidence Najib is seeking to adduce relates to the recent discovery that the trial judge (Mohd Nazlan) in 2006 was the general counsel and company secretary for Maybank Group, who had the ultimate overall responsibility for the management and administration of all legal departments within the entire group.
On July 28, 2020, High Court Judge Mohd Nazlan, who is now a Court of Appeal judge, sentenced Najib to 10 years’ jail on each of the three counts of criminal breach of trust (CBT) and each of the three counts of money laundering, and 12 years’ jail and a RM210 million fine, in default five years’ jail, in the case of abuse of position.
However, Najib would have to serve only 12 years in jail as the judge ordered all the jail sentences to run concurrently.
Hearing continues tomorrow. - Bernama
