It had been a turbulent two years for former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. On July 4, 2018, he was charged in the Sessions Court with three counts of criminal breach of trust (CBT) and one charge of abusing his post over SRC International Sdn Bhd's funds totalling RM42 million.
The case was then transferred to the High Court.
On August 8, 2018, he was charged at the High Court with three counts of money laundering. His counsel then applied for a gag order restraining the media, but the application was dismissed.
The court then set 33 days from February 12 to 28, 2019, and from March 4 to 29, 2019, for trial. But, things did not go on smoothly after. There were several interlocutory applications and appeals by Najib. Finally when actual hearing started, Najib faced seven charges – one charge of abuse of power, three charges of CBT and three charges of money laundering.
The prosecution called 57 witnesses to the stand, and tendered more than 750 exhibits, including bank
documents, bank accounts, cash transactions, minutes of meetings and Blackberry Messenger chats over Najib's transactions.
On November 11, 2019, trial Judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali ruled the prosecution had successfully adduced credible evidence proving each and every ingredient of the offences. He said a prima facie case had therefore been made out against the accused and ordered him to enter his defence.
The Judge took about an hour reading his judgment. He then gave Najib three options – either (i) give sworn evidence from the witness box, (ii) give an unsworn statement from the dock where he cannot be cross-examined, or (iii) choose to remain silent, in which case the court must proceed to convict him. Najib chose the first option.
The defence case started on 3 December 2019 and lasted 33 days with 19 witnesses taking the stand. Najib was the first witness to testify. He told the court that he did not know that the monies originated from SRC International.
The last stage of the proceeding arrived last week.
The court heard closing oral submissions from the prosecution and the defence. The court said it received written submissions extending over 2,000 pages.
On June 3, ad hoc prosecutor Datuk V. Sithambaram said (in his closing arguments) that on the issue of money laundering, it was "willful blindness" on the part of the accused that he "failed to inquire about the source of the money that flowed into his account"
"Najib, being the bank account holder must be vigilant and cautious of funds entering his personal bank accounts that he ultimately expended fully." In asking the court to convict the accused, Sithambaram said "If everything is looked at, I humbly submit that the seven charges have been proven."
On June 4, 2020, in his closing submission for the defence, Najib's counsel Harvinderjit Singh said that his client is a "victim of a scam" by fugitives Low Taek Jho and Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil "who were in cahoots with rogue bankers".
Harvinderjit said that Najib did not know the monies in his bank accounts originated from SRC International.
He told the court that his client had "genuine belief that the money was a continuation of donations from the Saudi royal family to him."
The trial Judge is scheduled to deliver his verdict on July 28. Although a prima facie finding normally ends in a guilty verdict, there have been occasions when it ends in an acquittal – when the defence team (after presenting its case) succeeds in raising reasonable doubts in the mind of the trial Judge.
It happened before to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, in his Sodomy II case. On 15 May 2011, the trial Judge held that a prima facie case had been proven and called Anwar to enter his defence.
However, on January 9, 2012, he found Anwar not guilty, acquitted and discharged him. When the prosecution appealed, in 2014 the Court of Appeal found him guilty.
On further appeal to the Federal Court, the conviction was upheld. The rest is history.
The writer is a former federal counsel at the Attorney-General's Chambers, and is deputy chairman of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times