Crime & Courts

The dog did it: Najib's appeal postponed as defence counsel's wrist broken by pet

PUTRAJAYA: An appeal by Datuk Seri Najib Razak relating to criminal charges involving SRC International Sdn Bhd has had to be postponed to Friday, all because of lead defence counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah’s dog.

Shafee told the Court of Appeal that he could not continue with his submission for the day as he was in much pain due to a fractured left wrist.

“My pet dog jumped up on me. I am now in pain and I need to seek immediate medical attention later through an X-ray,” he told the three-man panel.

Attorney-General Tommy Thomas, however, objected to any postponement, saying prosecution was under tremendous global pressure for the trial to start.

“Everyone wants the trial to start as early as tomorrow. There is an enormous pressure on the prosecution team. I understand counsel has a problem but on the other hand, we are under scrutiny as to why the trial hasn’t begun yet,” he said.

Shafee, however, suggested the hearing continue on Friday as Thomas was unavailable on Thursday.

Judge Datuk Zabariah Mohd Yusof, who is chairing the panel alongside Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang and Datuk Lau Bee Lan, then ruled the hearing postponed till Friday.

The hearing was scheduled so that the court could hear four appeals by the former prime minister in relation to the charges against him involving SRC International.

Meanwhile, Bernama reported that the defence team in the case was seeking access to documents that the prosecution does not intend to use in its case at the trial.

Ad hoc deputy public prosecutor Datuk V. Sithambaram submitted the statements and documents requested by the defence were not documents that the prosecution was required to supply under Section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

“The granting of the order sought by the appellant will effectively mean that the investigating papers have to be delivered over to the appellant as they are statements and documents obtained by the investigating officer under Section 30(9) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (MACC) and Section 40 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA),” he said.

Sithambaram, a lawyer who was appointed ad hoc deputy public prosecutor, said under Section 51A, the prosecution was only required to supply the defence at the pre-trial stage, a copy of the information report, documents that would be tendered as part of prosecution evidence and a written statement of facts favourable to the defence.

He said if the prosecution supplied all the documents it would be akin to surrendering the investigation papers in their entirety to the defence, causing floodgates to be opened as the prosecution would have to supply the entire investigating papers to the defence.

Sithambaram also submitted that there could be a possibility of witnesses tampering if witness statements were supplied to the defence before trial and witnesses would not come forward.

“The prosecution has to-date delivered 31 volumes of documents amounting to approximately 6500 pages, which it intends to use as part of the evidence for the prosecution,” he told the three-man bench in Najib’s appeal for discovery of documents.

He said admissibility of documents was a matter to be determined at the trial and not at the pre-trial stage.

Citing a case authority in Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s case, he said the Federal Court had held that an accused person was not entitled to know by what means the prosecution proposed to prove the facts underlying the charge he faced, which remained the prosecution’s prerogative.

Najib had filed four appeals relating to his interlocutory applications which were dismissed by the High Court.

The applications were for a gag order to prohibit the media and public from discussing the merits of his criminal case, for recovery of documents, to challenge the appointment of lawyer Datuk Sulaiman Abdullah as the lead prosecutor and the prosecution’s move to withdraw the certificate to transfer his case from the Sessions Court to the High Court.

Najib’s co-counsel Harvinderjit Singh argued that he was not asking for investigation papers, but wanted witness statements taken under the AMLA and MACC Act to assist them in their defence.

Most Popular
Related Article
Says Stories