PUTRAJAYA: Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah lambasted Datuk Seri Najib Razak's previous counsels for their alleged incompetency in handling the former prime minister's appeal in SRC International Bhd case at the Federal Court last year.
The senior lawyer who resumed to represent Najib in the case said Messrs Zaid Ibrahim Suflan TH Liew & Partners (Zist) did not have what it takes to represent a case of such magnitude which resulted Najib to be incarcerated in Kajang Prison.
Describing his relationship with Zist as acrimonious, Shafee said the law firm failed to tell Najib the truth by acting with "blind confidence" that the court would grant them an adjournment of the case.
"To begin with, Zist has never done criminal law and its partner lawyer Niru Pillai from Singapore was about to be disciplined by the Singaporean Bar because he was practicing without license.
"On July 25 last year, Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim and Niru advised Najib to replace his entire legal team with Zist. He also appointed Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik as the new lead counsel as recommended by Zist.
"Hisyam then asked the court for an adjournment because he needed time to read the case.
"He informed the court that the fault was his and not that of the applicant by accepting the brief at a late stage," he said.
On July 26, last year, Najib replaced his long-time counsel (Shafee) with Zist to handle his final appeal at the Apex Court.
Shafee had all this while led Najib's defence team in the SRC International case right from the time the former Umno president was charged in 2020.
Shafee argued that Najib did not get a fair trial for the appeal due to the miscalculated strategy by his newly-appointed counsels at that time.
"If the solicitor is at fault, then they should be dealt with the Malaysian Bar or court for contempt.
"My client changed the entire thing based on the advice of the new team," he added.
Shafee also asserted that the prosecution did not object to the adjournment application.
"Perhaps this was because the prosecution themselves realised the reasonableness of the application for adjournment by the new team of counsel and solicitors.
"There was no allegation, proven or otherwise, that the seeking of the postponement was a ploy to delay the proceeding.
"It is therefore mind-boggling for the Federal Court not to grant this adjournment between three to four months to enable the new solicitors and counsel to be effectively prepared," he said.
He said Hisyam also was unable to defend Najib in the proceedings as he was not prepared with his argument for the case.
"On Aug 19, Najib had discharged Zist on the basis that it was unable to contribute to the main appeal.
"The court took cognisance of the solicitors' discharge and then proceeded to order the respondent nevertheless, to continue submitting until they closed their submission," he said.
Shafee also said he could not fathom why the court also rejected Hisyam to recuse himself from defending Najib after his applications for adjournment were dismissed multiple times.
"Refusal of adjournment and not to allow counsel to discharge himself has got no nexus.
"The court took note on Zist's application to recuse from the hearing without any objection. Zist packed themself and left.
"However, it is different with Hisyam as he was not allowed to recuse himself and was being retained in court.
"I hesitated to submit this, but I have to say the truth that the court does not want to grapple with the issue the appellant left without counsel," he said.
Shafee said an appellant without counsel would become more complicated as the prospect of adjournment was more certain.
Najib is seeking a review of the Federal Court's decision to reject his application to adduce fresh evidence relating to the High Court judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali.