Case Of Justice Ignored Is Justice Denied

PUTRAJAYA, Tuesday – It is interesting to note that the outcome of former premier Najib Razak’s case brings a new norm in the decision-making process for an organisation such as SRC International Sdn Bhd as well as that of the judges.

The Court of Appeal (COA) here has upheld the conviction and sentence of Najib Razak in the SRC International Sdn Bhd case, where Najib was found guilty of misappropriating RM42mil from the company’s coffers.

A three-man panel chaired by Justice Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil said that the appellate court had found no errors in the decision by the learned trial judge, Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali.

In the decision, Justice Abdul Karim touched on several pertinent matters that were raised during the appeal, including the definition of a “shadow director” in SRC International, whom, he said largely operates clandestinely without “showing the hands.”

The judge added that when the evidence was scrutinised, the hands were “found”.

He said the learned trial judge was correct when he found the totality of evidence had shown who was the shadow director of SRC International.

“There are ample evidence that the directors (of the company) followed the instructions by the appellant (Najib),” he said.

However, it is interesting to note that the learned judges made decisions that have neglected the responsibilities of the Board of Directors (BOD) and top management in making important decisions related to the company’s finances.

They made decisions as though stake/shareholders can go beyond the authority of management and Board Members in making any decision.

How can a company CEO who has broad authority to determine all important operations of the company act without minutes being decided by the BOD?

In fact, those who have control over the company’s money are the directors and signatories of the company’s bank accounts, not just advisors or shadow directors.

Transferring money to a person’s account without any supporting documents related to the company’s operations ignores the responsibility of the party concerned. The party concerned should also be taken to court.

What are the limits of the authority possessed by the company advisor (shadow director) in strategic matters to determine the direction of the company that can go beyond the operational duties of the company that should be assumed by the Board Members or management? This is also an important issue.

In the SRC case, even without key witnesses like Jho Low, Nik Faisal and key characters such as Aspin Alias, does the court have enough evidence to pass judgment on the accused?

In other words, does it make sense for a person in the position of CEO of 1MDB to just follow Jho Low’s instructions with the ASSUMPTION that Jho Low received instructions from ‘someone very influential’ without him checking with the relevant parties?

The main question is, why are the parties involved allowed to escape when they are also the MAIN CHARACTERS in the case.

The assumption that all actions of the trustee get the blessings of the party giving the trust is also very loose as long as the trustee is not questioned in court.

The trustee must be questioned and tried in court to prove that all his actions have the blessing of the party who gave the trust.

Meanwhile, the blog thecoverage.my has given 10 reasons why Malaysia’s 6th Prime Minister should not be acquitted. It published a blog post headlined “Rule Of Law: 10 Legal Reasons Why Najib Razak Must Be Acquitted & Discharge Immediately.” We publish their 10 reasons here.

1.0 NAJIB WAS NOT CHARGED FOR STEALING RM42 MILLION. HE WAS CHARGED FOR ABUSING HIS POWER IN YEAR 2011 BY ATTENDING A CABINET MEETING WHERE A RM4 BILLION GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE WAS GIVEN TO SRC

The person who evaluated SRC and proposed the RM4 billion guarantee to be given was the economics minister Nor Mohd Yakcop, who was revealed last week to have conspired with Jho Low to take RM85 million from 1MDB in the year 2009 which he hid in a proxy account under his name in Singapore.

However, this information about Nor Yakcop was hidden by the prosecutors and the public until a 14-page MACC investigation paper was completed in the year 2019 – which explains why the prosecutors pulled Nor Yakcop from testifying in court at the last minute despite his key role.

2.0 NAJIB WAS THEN CHARGED FOR AMLA BECAUSE RM42 MILLION ENTERED HIS BANK ACCOUNTS VIA SEVERAL TRANSACTIONS FROM END OF YEAR 2014 TO THE 1ST HALF OF 2015 – ABOUT 4 YEARS AFTER HE HAD ALLEGEDLY ABUSED HIS POWER IN 2011 WHEN HE PARTICIPATED IN OR WAS INVOLVED IN THE CABINET MEETING TO GRANT THE RM4 BILLION GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE.

This RM42 million was approved to be paid for CSR activities by SRC to its subsidiary Gandingan Mentari which then paid Ihsan Perdana who in turn deposited it via several transactions to Najib’s accounts.

The prosecutors have never proven that Najib ever instructed or asked for this money.

Najib then spent the RM42 million on various CSR activities directly or via programs done by his political parties – the same way as he had spent RM642 million that the courts were told by MACC and Ambank that Najib received directly from the Saudi Arabia Ministry of Finance bank accounts.

When sentencing Najib, the judge said that it was not his right to spend this RM42 million on charity.

“RM42 million not yours to give to charity, judge tells Najib”
This is why Najib was charged under AMLA or movements of illegal funds – not under Criminal Misappropriation like Guan Eng in the Penang Tunnel case which involves stealing the money for personal use.

3.0 IF THE COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT THEN IT MEANS THAT ANYONE WHO EVER PARTICIPATED IN A MEETING CAN BE CHARGED SHOULD FUNDS RELATED TO THAT MEETING EVER FINDS ITS WAY TO THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS MANY YEARS LATER EVEN IF THEY NEVER ASKED FOR IT, NEVER INSTRUCTED IT OR HAD KNOWLEDGE ABOUT IT.

In fact, Najib had written more than 30 cheques that would have bounced but it was covered by the bank officer in Ambank and by Jho Low to stop it from bouncing.

No one would have written cheques that would have bounced if they knew their actual bank account balance.

In Najib’s case, the management of his bank account was given to his officers.

4.0 THE JUDGE AGREED THAT FORMER BNM GOVERNOR ZETI WAS THE ONE WHO ASKED NAJIB TO OPEN AN ACCOUNT IN HIS OWN NAME AND WAS ASKED BY NAJIB TO MONITOR HIS BANK ACCOUNTS FOR SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS BUT SAID THAT NAJIB SHOULD NEVER HAVE DELEGATED THIS MONITORING TO ZETI.

If Zeti had done his job as instructed by Najib, then the SRC money which was all transacted within our local banking system would never have made its way into Najib’s account.

It was then later revealed that the family of Zeti was similarly paid at least RM700 million by Jho Low from the year 2007 to 2013 of which RM65 million was returned.

Again this information was hidden from Najib and his defence team for a year until it was exposed by a MACC statement only on 19 November 2021.

And again this explains why the prosecutors pulled Zeti from testifying in court at the last minute despite her key role.

And again, the Court of Appeal made a decision yesterday that this new evidence regarding Nor Yakcop is not relevant to their decision on Najib.

5.0 NO ONE ELSE OTHER THAN NAJIB WAS CHARGED FOR THE SRC CASE. NONE OF THE DIRECTORS, MANAGEMENT OR THE AUDITORS WERE CHARGED.

In fact, in the same 19 Nov 2021 MACC statement that exposed Zeti’s family, it was also revealed that RM3 million of funds related to SRC kept in Nik Faisal’s account was also returned by Singapore to Malaysia.

Despite his key role, Nik Faisal never testified in the SRC trial. Jho Low also never testified.

And again, the Court of Appeal made a decision yesterday that this new evidence regarding Nik Faisal receiving money related to SRC/1MDB from persons unknown is not relevant to their decision on Najib.

6.0 HIDING EVIDENCE IN NAJIB’S TRIAL WILL BE UNJUST

Former law minister Zaid Ibrahim has cautioned against a miscarriage of justice in Najib Razak’s trial in the SRC International case at the Court of Appeal.

Speaking to FMT, he said the court should allow Najib’s request for new evidence to be adduced.

Any concealment or suppression of evidence that could help the former prime minister’s defence would be a miscarriage of justice, he added.

Yesterday, it was reported that Najib’s lawyers had applied to adduce fresh evidence, days before the Court of Appeal delivers its decision on the case.

The pieces of evidence include those from Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief commissioner Azam Baki and SRC investigating officer Rosli Hussein or others the lawyers said the court might deem fit.

In his affidavit in support of the motion, Najib said all issues raised in the High Court and Court of Appeal had not been fully determined and that it was within the interest of justice that he get a fair trial by having all evidence produced.

This followed revelations that RM65 million in 1MDB-linked funds had been retrieved from a company controlled by the husband of former Bank Negara Malaysia governor Zeti Akthar Aziz.

Najib said the additional evidence from Azam and Rosli needed to be taken as it was not available during the trial.

“There are aspects to the prosecution case that are gallingly poor,” said Zaid. “Critical evidence relating to payments to Zeti’s husband was not made available to the defence and it will be unsafe to convict Najib based on the prosecution’s case as presented.

“In our criminal justice system, the prosecution must never suppress or conceal evidence that would be helpful to the defence. It would be a miscarriage of justice.”

7.0 COURT REJECTS NAJIB’S BID TO CITE NEW EVIDENCE AHEAD OF VERDICT ON SRC APPEAL

The Court of Appeal has rejected Najib Razak’s application to cite more evidence in his SRC International appeal, with its verdict to be delivered as scheduled.

If his conviction is upheld, the defence is expected to apply for a stay of execution pending further appeal at the Federal Court.

Najib had applied to allow new evidence to be adduced in his appeal against his 12-year jail sentence and a fine of RM210 million for misappropriating RM42 million in SRC International funds. (Editor’s Note: The original article was published a day before the judgement was given).

8.0 TOMMY THOMAS CONFESSED THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT COMPLETED YET WHEN THEY CHARGED NAJIB

By Tommy Thomas’s confession, they did not yet know the whole truth at the time they arrested and charged Najib. Only after Najib was convicted did they know the whole truth. And the truth revealed today is that certain facts indicate those who accuse Najib may be guilty of conflict of interest or worse.

And those with dirty hands cannot point fingers at others, especially when they point fingers at others to conceal their crimes. Najib may or may not be guilty. But this is not about winning. It is about how you play the game. And if you win by foul means, then that win is nullified. It is as simple as that. And you do not need to be a lawyer to understand that in law the end does not justify the means.

9.0 ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE GOVERNMENT RIGGED NAJIB’S TRIAL

If the two Bank Negara Governors are crooks, then their evidence against Najib is highly suspected and Jho Low may have conspired with Mahathir to fix up Najib after all.

Today, we are discussing the issue of Najib. Did Najib steal 1MDB’s or SRC’s money? Is Najib innocent or guilty? Do you like Najib or do you hate him?

All that does not matter. Only one question needs to be asked. And that question is: did Najib get a fair trial or was crucial evidence suppressed and hidden from Najib’s defence team and the court? And if the answer is yes, the issue of Najib’s guilt or innocence is irrelevant. That issue does not even need to be discussed.

And it appears that the Attorney-General and the government rigged Najib’s trial. They hid certain very crucial evidence from the defence team and the court. The excuse Tommy Thomas gave is that at that time the investigation was still ongoing and had not been completed yet. So they did not know these facts yet.

If that is true, why did they rush to charge Najib? Why not wait until the investigation was completed before charging Najib?

10.0 THE WHOLE TRUTH HAS NOT BEEN REVEALED AND MUCH HAS BEEN HIDDEN FROM NAJIB’S DEFENCE TEAM AND FROM THE COURT

The 14-page document below (you can download the PDF version at the link) reveals a lot of new information that has thus far not been revealed. This document is marked RAHSIA and is protected under the Official Secrets Act (OSA).

This MACC report reveals that AmBank has been implicated in the 1MDB scandal and was supposed to pay a fine of RM5 billion. However, to protect AmBank’s reputation and credibility as a witness against Najib Tun Razak, it was recommended that AmBank be made to pay back less than RM1 billion.

Cheah Teck Kuang was the Managing Director and adviser of AMMB Holdings. It was Cheah who obtained approval from the Bank Negara Governor, Zeti Akhtar Aziz, for Najib to bring the RM2.6 billion into the country and for the money to be banked into Najib’s bank account.

Hence the RM2.6 billion was brought into Malaysia with the full knowledge and prior consent of the Bank Negara Governor herself. And before giving her approval, Zeti had done due diligence on the source of funds to ensure the money was not obtained illegally.

Nor Mohamed Yakcop is also mentioned in this report. Nor Mohamed was the EPU minister in charge of doing the due diligence on SRC International. The MACC report said Nor Mohamed made RM85 million from the 2009 1MDB Sukuk offering, which he hid in a proxy account in Singapore.

Zeti’s husband Tawfiq Ayman’s involvement with Jho Low and how much money he received is also revealed, and which Malaysia Today had already reported earlier.

In fact, former Attorney-General Tommy Thomas declared that Zeti and her husband had facilitated or helped to perpetuate the 1MDB heist. In other words, what Tommy Thomas is suggesting is that Zeti made all the stealing possible.

However, Tommy Tomas lied when he said the MACC had not completed their investigations yet during his time as Attorney-General. According to the MACC, the report below had already been completed in 2019 during the time of the Pakatan Harapan government and when Tommy Thomas was Attorney-General.

Clearly, the whole truth has not been revealed and much has been hidden from Najib’s defence team and the court. Today, Malaysia Today is revealing what the MACC investigation revealed, and which the public is not being told. Malaysia Today is also exposing the huge discount on the fine that AmBank was given to protect AmBank’s reputation and credibility as a witness against Najib Tun Razak.

The Court of Appeal has allowed a stay application by Datuk Seri Najib Razak on the execution of his jail time and fine in the SRC International case pending an appeal to the Federal Court. – New Malaysia Herald