Former Premier Najib Razak gives no-holds-barred testimony on Soros’ OSF to effect regime change and bring down a stable government that had led Malaysia for 60 years
KUALA LUMPUR – In the heart of a contentious legal battle, former Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, a central figure in the 1MDB-Tanore trial, has made explosive claims that the prosecution is not only politically motivated but also influenced by foreign entities, notably the Open Society Foundations (OSF) led by George Soros.
Political Motivation Allegations
Najib has accused the prosecution of being a tool for political rivals, suggesting that the charges are part of a broader scheme to undermine their credibility and political standing. The defendant named several individuals, including Amhari and Shahrol, alleging that their testimonies are part of a concerted effort to falsely implicate them in wrongdoing. These accusations come amidst a backdrop of ongoing political turbulence, where legal battles often intersect with political agendas.
Foreign Influence Claims
A significant development in the case is the assertion of interference by the Open Society Foundations. Najib alleges that this organisation, known for its global advocacy of democratic governance, has played a role in shaping the narrative against them. While specific details were not provided in court, the claim highlights concerns about the potential impact of international entities on domestic legal proceedings.
Najib’s defence team, led by Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah later elaborated at a press conference that the Department of Justice (DOJ)’s public handling of the case, whilst under the then Democratic-led U.S. administration, despite acknowledging its civil forfeiture complaint was merely an allegation, created a false narrative that vilified Najib before any evidence was tested in court.
“This approach mirrors the tactics used by the same DOJ again whilst under the then Democratic-led U.S. administration, against then-U.S. President Donald Trump, politically charged investigations amplified by aggressive media narratives. The parallels are striking: both Najib and Trump faced relentless campaigns from the DOJ, weaponised to serve political agendas under the guise of legal proceedings.
Smear Campaign on Najib
“Moreover, Alex Soros, son of George Soros, further fuelled the smear campaign against Najib by producing a one-sided documentary on the 1MDB matter, released globally to perpetuate the narrative of guilt without trial. This media manipulation forms part of a broader agenda to influence international opinion and destabilise Malaysia’s leadership.
“The fallout of these actions is clear: Malaysia experienced unprecedented political instability, with four Prime Ministers in just four years post-2018, an outcome that serves to underscore the success of this calculated interference.
“Najib’s defence today is not just about clearing his name; it is a stand against the erosion of Malaysia’s sovereignty by external forces. The similarities between the cases of Najib and Trump remind us of a troubling trend: the weaponisation of legal institutions by politically motivated entities to undermine leaders who challenge the status quo.” Shafee stated during the press conference.
Double Jeopardy and Legal Fairness
Central to Najib’s defence is the issue of double jeopardy. Despite a prior acquittal, the re-emergence of similar charges casts doubt on the judicial process’s fairness. Legal experts emphasise that constitutional protections against double jeopardy are fundamental, and any breach could have significant implications for the integrity of legal proceedings.
TSS: Apart from what you have raised earlier in your testimony why do you say that justice has not been accorded to you, when this trial has yet to be completed?
Najib: Apart from what I have raised earlier in my testimony, I also see the injustices in the treatment of the evidence and findings against me. I was tried and subsequently acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction in the case of PP v Arul Kanda and Najib Razak, Criminal Trial No. WA – 45 – 11 – 04/2019, (“Audit Trial”) the charges against me there concerned the allegations are that in 2016, I purportedly directed the removal of paragraphs containing two versions in the 2014 1MDB Audit Report and the removal of Jho Low’s name from the Minutes of the Special BOD Meeting dated 26 September 2009.
The order of acquittal in 2023 was pursuant to a full and thorough examination of the facts, supported by witnesses’ testimonies and documents presented during the trial. The Auditor-General himself came and testify in Court. This was not an acquittal where the proceeding against me was discontinued, I was acquitted and discharged at the end of the Prosecution’s case after the trial judge found that the Prosecution has failed to make out a case against me for purportedly instructing the removal of Jho Low’s name in the Minutes of the BOD meeting on 26.9.2009.
However, lo and behold, in 2024, the very same allegation that I instructed the Audit Report to be amended or tampered resurfaced again in this trial, despite my earlier acquittal. Not only was this allegation, for which I was acquitted, brought up again, it was even turned into the subject of an adverse inference and criticism against me here in this trial, to infer my guilt for the charges herein!
Acquitted!
I was acquitted of the allegation by Yang Arif Mohamed Zaini J (Now Court of Appeal Judge) on 3 March 2023 but the Investigating Officer, Nur Aida in Paragraph 346(15) still made reference to the allegation against me when she testified in 2024.
For the record, Nur Aida led no substantive evidence to support her conclusion that I purportedly instructed the removal of paragraphs containing two versions in the 2014 1MDB Audit Report and the removal of Jho Low’s name from the Minutes of the Special BOD Meeting dated 26 September 2009. Notably, Nur Aida failed to even tender any fresh evidence to corroborate her claims which could justify the departure from the order of acquittal made on 3 March 2023 on the charges where the amendments to the Minutes were the very subject-matter tried!
To me this situation raises serious concerns about the fairness of this proceeding and the findings made or to be made against me. I was advised and educated by my lawyers that the law and the Federal Constitution strictly provides against double-jeopardy, where a person is put in peril twice for the very same offence.
I was also informed and educated on the concept of issue estoppel which operated in favour of any accused person where an issue that has been adjudicated cannot be brought again the same defendant in another subsequent proceeding.
And most notably, I was informed by my lawyers that generally under the law, even if I was convicted in the Audit Trial, that very conviction could not be brought up in this trial to infer my guilt or tendency to commit the charges here. What more I was actually acquitted!
Unfairly Treated
This is no longer about my feeling of being unfairly treated, I know for a fact that I am being unfairly treated. The concept of double jeopardy clearly was not extended to me, I am forced to defend myself again, which clearly I am doing now because of the adverse finding made against me in relation to both the Audit Report and Minute of Meeting amendment, this was without any fresh evidence being presented against me here.
How is this fair? They allege that no one’s is above the law, but from what I observe, I was put beneath the law, even the most rudimentary of the fundamental liberties enshrined under the Federal Constitution the one against double jeopardy was not even extended to me!
Criticism of MACC’s Investigation
Najib has also voiced concerns over the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) handling of the investigation. They argue that critical questions were omitted during the inquiry, a strategy perceived as undermining their ability to mount a robust defence.
Conclusion
As the trial continues, the allegations of political motivation and foreign interference add complexity to an already high-stakes legal drama. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications, not only for Najib but also for the broader context of legal and political accountability in the country.
As Shafee clearly stated: “It is imperative that these issues are openly addressed, not only to safeguard the integrity of Malaysia’s justice system but also to remind the public of the broader forces at play in shaping political narratives.
“These patterns of interference demand scrutiny and accountability, both domestically and internationally,” he emphasised. – NMH
Datin Hasnah is the co-founder and CEO of New Malaysia Herald based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
With an extensive background in mass communication and journalism, she works on building up New Malaysia Herald and it’s partner sites. A tireless and passionate evangalist, she champions autism studies and support groups.
Datin Hasnah is also the Editor in Chief of New Malaysia Herald.
Facebook Comments
Facebook Comments