KUALA LUMPUR: It will be difficult for the prosecution to bring corrupt individuals to justice if they need to stick to the rules governing the Evidence Act 1950 (1950 Act), the High Court heard today.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram said requiring the prosecution to prove each and every document in accordance with the strict requirements of the 1950 Act could lead to the escape of many graft criminals.
He said that was why the government introduced Section 41(A) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act (MACC Act) 2009 by way of amendments to avoid this consequence.
Section 41(A) of the MACC Act states that any document or a copy of any document obtained by the MACC under this Act shall be admissible in evidence in any proceedings under this Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other written law.
Sri Ram said the recording and transcript were admissible under Section 41A of the MACC Act because the closing words of that section exclude the method or mode of proof prescribed by the provisions under Chapter 5 of the 1950 Act.
He said the definition in the 1950 Act was not available for present purposes as the common law definition of document was wide enough to house recordings and transcripts within it.
"These days, transactions in millions can be carried out electronically in the flash of an eye.
"Chapter 5 of the 1950 Act is the general law governing admission of documentary evidence whereas Section 41(A) of the MACC Act is a special law.
"The recording and transcript are admissible by reason of Section 41(A) of the MACC Act irrespective of any question of relevance," he said.
Sri Ram said this in his submissions to admit an audio recording between Datuk Seri Najib Razak and a Saudi monarch as evidence in the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) trial.
Sri Ram said the recording and transcript come within the ambit of Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the 1950 Act.
"They concern the accused's role in 1MDB and his relationship with that company.
"It will also demonstrate the accused's modus operandi at the material time," he said, adding that the weight to be given to the recording was something which the court would have to determine at the end of the case for the prosecution.
Najib's counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah in his submissions argued that admitting his client's recorded private phone conversation as evidence would infringe his rights to a fair trial.
Najib, 69, is facing four charges of using his position to get bribes totalling RM2.3 billion from 1MDB funds and 21 charges of money laundering.
The trial before High Court judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah continues.