Defence lawyers for Datuk Seri Najib Razak criticised the prosecution’s hasty investigation in the 1MDB trial, arguing that unreliable witnesses and a misunderstanding of bank transactions have led to baseless charges against the former prime minister.
KUALA LUMPUR — In a dramatic turn of events during the 1MDB trial last week, defence lawyers for former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak accused the prosecution of conducting a rushed and incomplete investigation. Lead defense counsel, Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah lambasted the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) for allegedly charging Najib before gathering all the necessary evidence, resulting in what the defence characterised as baseless charges.
A Hasty Prosecution
Shafee highlighted that the prosecution’s case was built on unsubstantiated claims, primarily driven by the MACC’s eagerness to charge Najib before the investigation was completed. He criticised the MACC officers for not taking the time to verify key financial details, leading to charges that, according to the defense, lacked proper legal grounding.
“They were in such a rush to indict my client that they didn’t even complete their own investigation,” Shafee argued in court, underscoring the pressure to fast-track the case. He further asserted that the MACC failed to verify the sources of the funds deposited into Najib’s accounts, which had been classified as unlawful transactions.
Another defence lawyer, Tania Scivetti, pointed out that the supposed fraudulent transactions were actually overdrafts provided by the bank. “How can they charge Najib for fraudulent income when the evidence clearly shows these were bank overdrafts?” she asked, adding that the prosecution’s lack of understanding of financial documents has led to a severe miscarriage of justice.
Unreliable Witnesses
The defence also zeroed in on the credibility of the prosecution’s key witnesses, labeling their testimonies as inconsistent and unreliable. Multiple witnesses had testified to seeing fugitive financier Jho Low at critical 1MDB meetings, but under cross-examination, several admitted that their accounts were based on hearsay or assumptions.
“These witnesses are simply not credible,” said Scivetti. “They came forward with conflicting stories, and none of them could provide direct evidence linking my client to any wrongdoing.”
Shafee echoed these sentiments, stating that many of the prosecution’s witnesses had ulterior motives for testifying against Najib. He suggested that some of them were trying to save their own skins or shift blame away from themselves. “We have seen time and again that these witnesses are attempting to escape their own complicity by pointing fingers at Najib,” Shafee argued.
The Overdraft Defence
Central to the defence’s case was the argument that the transactions in question were not fraudulent inflows of money, as the prosecution claimed, but rather overdraft facilities provided by a legitimate bank. Scivetti meticulously laid out evidence showing that the funds identified by the prosecution were, in fact, part of an overdraft arrangement with Ambank, not illicit transfers.
“This was a normal banking transaction—an overdraft facility. Yet, they’re treating it as if it were fraudulent income. The prosecution has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the financial arrangements,” Scivetti told the court, pointing out that none of the prosecution’s financial experts could adequately explain why an overdraft was classified as a crime.
Missteps in the 1MDB Investigation
The defence continued to press the issue of poor investigative work. Shafee contended that crucial documents, such as the bank records that would have clarified the nature of the transactions, were either ignored or misunderstood by the MACC.
In particular, Shafee noted that the prosecution never provided solid proof linking Najib directly to any illegal activity. Instead, much of their case rested on circumstantial and hearsay evidence, which Shafee argued was not enough to support the serious charges leveled against the former prime minister.
“They want to charge my client with crimes, but they don’t even have the necessary documentation to back up their claims,” Shafee said, referring to the prosecution’s reliance on vague or incomplete records.
Defence Calls for Acquittal of Najib
As the trial draws to a close, the defence has called for the court to dismiss the charges against Najib, arguing that the prosecution’s case is fundamentally flawed. The defence team insists that Najib had no knowledge of any illicit activities and was merely a victim of poor advice from his subordinates and external advisors.
Najib’s legal team has consistently argued that he acted in good faith, relying on trusted professionals within 1MDB and other financial institutions. They maintain that the charges against him are unfounded, built on incomplete evidence and unreliable testimony.
Justice Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah (now Court of Appeal judge), who presided over the trial at the High Court here, will decide on 30 October whether to call Najib to enter his defence on the charges or to acquit him.
As the verdict looms, the defence’s criticisms of the investigation, combined with its focus on the overdraft transactions, are likely to play a key role in Najib’s final plea for acquittal. – 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