Mahkamah Tinggi hari ini diberitahu bahawa bekas perdana menteri Najib Razak tidak mengurus secara mikro operasi SRC International atau 1Malaysia Development Berhad.

Bekas Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif 1MDB Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi bersetuju semasa pemeriksaan semula oleh peguam bela Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah bahawa Najib tidak pernah menghubunginya untuk mengarahkan beliau memaklumkan kepada lembaga pengarah supaya meluluskan sebarang keputusan syarikat.

Tadbir urus SRC dibangkitkan

Shafee mencadangkan bahawa dalam struktur tadbir urus korporat, keputusan syarikat sepatutnya datang daripada pihak pengurusan dan lembaga pengarah sebelum dipertimbangkan oleh pemegang saham, bukannya diarahkan secara terus dari pihak atasan.

Beliau turut berhujah bahawa Najib, yang ketika itu merupakan perdana menteri dan menteri kewangan, tidak terlibat dalam pengurusan harian syarikat-syarikat tersebut.

Menurut Shafee, walaupun sebuah pejabat kecil pernah disediakan untuk Najib di 1MDB, beliau tidak pernah menggunakannya, manakala di SRC International pula tiada pejabat khas disediakan untuknya.

Peguam itu turut menekankan kelayakan profesional anggota pengurusan dan lembaga pengarah syarikat pada masa itu, termasuk Tan Sri Ismee Ismail serta beberapa tokoh korporat lain yang berpengalaman.

Shafee berkata sekiranya Najib mempunyai niat untuk menyalahgunakan kedudukannya bagi kepentingan peribadi, beliau tidak akan melantik individu berkelayakan tinggi untuk mengurus syarikat tersebut.

Asal-usul TIA

Mahkamah turut mendengar mengenai penubuhan Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA), yang kemudiannya menjadi asas kepada penubuhan 1MDB.

Shafee berkata idea penubuhan TIA pada asalnya dicetuskan oleh ahli perniagaan dalam buruan Jho Low sebagai dana kekayaan berdaulat untuk negeri Terengganu.

Cadangan itu menurutnya dikemukakan kepada Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin, yang dikatakan telah mengenali Jho Low lebih awal daripada Najib.

Bagaimanapun, projek tersebut kemudiannya menjadi pertikaian di peringkat kerajaan negeri sebelum akhirnya diambil alih oleh kerajaan Persekutuan dan dinamakan semula sebagai 1Malaysia Development Berhad.

Perkembangan itu berlaku dalam tempoh peralihan pentadbiran daripada bekas perdana menteri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi kepada Najib.

Mahkamah turut diberitahu bahawa Shahrol mengenali Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil lebih awal melalui Wynton Pte Equity Group, sebuah entiti yang dikaitkan dengan Jho Low.

Nik Faisal kemudiannya dilantik sebagai ketua pegawai eksekutif SRC International pada 2010.

Dalam kenyataan kepada Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission sebelum ini, Nik Faisal mendakwa beliau dilantik oleh Shahrol, namun perkara itu dinafikan oleh Shahrol di mahkamah.

Nik Faisal kini dilaporkan telah lari ke luar negara dan masih belum kembali untuk memberi keterangan.

Perbicaraan sivil berhubung SRC International diteruskan dengan mahkamah meneliti aspek tadbir urus, struktur pengurusan serta proses membuat keputusan dalam syarikat tersebut dan kaitannya dengan 1Malaysia Development Berhad. – NMH

Baca juga:
Keadilan Akhirnya Menang – Perjalanan Panjang Najib Berakhir Dalam Kes SRC 2.0

The post Perbicaraan SRC: Shahrol Setuju Najib Tidak Campur Tangan Urus 1MDB, SRC first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR – Former 1MDB CEO Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi told the High Court that SRC International decisions were not micromanaged by former prime minister Najib Razak, agreeing he had never been instructed to direct the board on corporate matters.

Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi told the High Court today that former prime minister Najib Razak did not micromanage the operations of SRC International or 1Malaysia Development Berhad, agreeing during re-examination that Najib had never instructed him to tell the board to approve any corporate decisions.

During questioning by defence counsel Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah, Shahrol also agreed that Najib had never personally called him to direct that the board of directors approve any particular investment, transaction or corporate decision involving the two companies.

Shafee suggested that corporate governance within 1MDB and SRC required decisions to originate from management and the board of directors, rather than being imposed from the top by the shareholder or political leadership.

Governance: Shahrol Says Najib Never Directed Board Decisions

The defence also highlighted the professional credentials of the company’s leadership at the time, including board members and senior executives such as Tan Sri Ismee Ismail and other senior officials, arguing that they were highly qualified individuals entrusted with overseeing the companies’ management and governance.

Shafee also traced the origins of 1MDB, telling the court that the idea for the Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA) — the predecessor to 1MDB — was initially mooted by fugitive financier Jho Low.

He said the proposal was presented to Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin before the fund was eventually taken over by the federal government following disagreements at the state level and subsequently renamed 1MDB.

SRC Origins and Role of Nik Faisal Raised in Court

During the session, Shahrol confirmed that he had met Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil earlier through Winton, an entity linked to Jho Low. Nik Faisal later became chief executive officer of SRC International.

Shafee suggested that Najib had initially not known Nik Faisal and only became aware of him after his profile was presented.

Nik Faisal, who is currently a fugitive, had previously told the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission that he had been appointed by Shahrol — a claim Shahrol denied during the trial.

The court will continue hearing testimony related to the management and governance of SRC International, as the civil proceedings scrutinise the roles of management, the board and shareholder representatives in the company’s decision-making process. – NMH

Also read:
Justice Finally Prevails In SRC 2.0 – Najib’s Long Wait Ends

The post SRC Trial: Shahrol Agrees Najib Did Not Micromanage 1MDB, SRC first appeared on NMH.

The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) has formally discontinued its appeal in the money-laundering (AMLA) charges involving Rosmah Mansor, according to official filings dated 9 and 11 December 2025. The Notice of Discontinuance, submitted to the Court of Appeal, resulted in the immediate vacating of the scheduled 22 December case management date, and the appeal has now been recorded as concluded under Order 73 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994.

The withdrawal effectively ends the prosecution’s challenge to earlier court developments relating to the AMLA matter. It closes a path that has extended across several years, involving multiple stages of hearings, administrative reviews and legal submissions. With the Notice of Discontinuance accepted by the Court, the case moves from active litigation to formal closure at the appellate level.

Finality After Years of Public Scrutiny

The AMLA proceedings against Rosmah have been among the most closely followed cases in the country, drawing significant public and media attention since the charges were first brought. Over the years, the case navigated a complex sequence of legal steps, including pre-trial applications, interlocutory decisions, and subsequent appellate processes.

The prosecution’s decision to withdraw the appeal now brings a sense of finality. With the withdrawal in effect, all administrative matters tied to the appeal have been settled, and the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the file is now closed.

Rosmah Reserves Response as Proceedings Conclude

Throughout the legal process, Rosmah Mansor has adhered to all court requirements while maintaining a reserved position publicly. Consistent with her approach in recent years, she has not issued any statement regarding the prosecution’s decision to discontinue the appeal.

Understandably for her, the withdrawal marks the end of another long chapter in her legal journey, which has unfolded under extensive national scrutiny. It is surely welcome news indeed, a day after her 74th birthday.

A Case That Shaped Public Discourse

The AMLA proceedings, given their duration and public profile, have formed a notable part of Malaysia’s wider legal and political conversation over the past several years. The legal community would notably describe the appeal’s conclusion as an important procedural milestone, providing closure to a matter that has remained active since a year ago. – NMH

The post Rosmah Mansor’s AMLA Case: Appeal Withdrawal Brings Finality first appeared on NMH.

The final stretch of the defence’s submissions in former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) trial has put the spotlight back where it belongs — on the integrity of Malaysia’s justice system. After years of political theatre and selective outrage, the defence has laid out a case that raises the simplest yet most damning question: where is the proof?

Over several days, the defence team meticulously argued that the prosecution’s narrative is not built on evidence, but on hearsay, contradictions and convenient amnesia. And in doing so, they exposed a judicial imbalance that has allowed the truly culpable to escape scrutiny while the former prime minister faces the full weight of blame.

Prosecution’s House of Cards: Built on Hearsay and Denial

Throughout the week, the defence pointed to the prosecution’s heavy reliance on hearsay and double hearsay — with witnesses like Shahrol Azral, the former 1MDB CEO, and others making sweeping claims unsupported by documents or direct evidence.

Even the judge, Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah, had previously cautioned that findings at the prima facie stage are not conclusive. The law demands that all evidence — both prosecution and defence — be re-evaluated before guilt can be determined beyond reasonable doubt. Yet, the prosecution’s final push has been emotional rather than evidential, focusing on rhetoric instead of facts.

It is an uncomfortable truth that the prosecution has failed to meet the burden of proof required in any credible criminal proceeding. Instead, the case appears driven by an obsession to convict, not to clarify.

The Saudi Donation: Verified Then, Denied Now

Perhaps the most striking revelation in the defence’s submission is how the prosecution continues to deny the authenticity of the Saudi donation — even though it had previously been verified.

The facts are clear. Representatives from the Attorney General’s Chambers, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), and other relevant government authorities travelled to Saudi Arabia years ago. They interviewed Saudi officials and verified that donations had indeed been promised to Najib by King Abdullah.

Najib’s belief that the funds in his personal account were Saudi donations for CSR and election purposes was not only reasonable — it was reinforced by Malaysia’s own investigative authorities.

He even went further: when it became clear that a portion of the funds was unused, Najib returned the balance — amounting to USD620 million — to the Saudi government.
As the defence rightly asked, what kind of thief returns the stolen goods?

The Real Culprits Walk Free While Najib Is Still Behind Bars

If there is one glaring injustice in this entire saga, it is how the real masterminds behind the 1MDB transactions — Jho Low and Jasmine Loo — have escaped accountability.

Both individuals were central to 1MDB’s financial dealings. Both were responsible for structuring and moving the funds. And both fled when the scandal broke. Jho Low remains a fugitive, while Jasmine Loo — once a key figure in the financial flows — has been rewarded with witness status after returning assets and properties linked to 1MDB.

Equally troubling is the treatment of Shahrol Azrai, the former CEO of 1MDB, whose mismanagement, omissions and questionable decisions formed the backbone of the scandal. Despite his direct role, he was not charged, but instead turned into a prosecution witness — conveniently shielded while Najib, who sat on an advisory board without executive powers, faces criminal liability.

In any functioning legal system, this inversion of justice would have caused the entire case to collapse.

Bank Negara’s Role and the Selective Blame Game

The defence also highlighted another inconvenient truth: Bank Negara Malaysia had been fully aware of the fund inflows and even advised the then Prime Minister to use his personal account for the Saudi donations.

Given the central bank’s oversight of large financial movements, there was no way billions could have entered Malaysia’s banking system without triggering alerts or scrutiny. Yet, rather than investigating its own procedural failures, the system turned its guns on Najib — the one individual who had acted transparently based on the advice of the very institutions now distancing themselves.

This selective amnesia is not merely troubling; it erodes public confidence in the rule of law.

A Trial That Wouldn’t Stand Elsewhere

In many jurisdictions, a case so riddled with contradictions, hearsay and compromised witnesses would have been dismissed long ago.

The defence has demonstrated that the prosecution’s claims rest on speculation, assumptions and documents that are missing or unverified.

The defence team was led by Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and assisted by Datuk Tania Scivetti, Wan Azwan Aiman Wan Fakhruddin, Wan Mohammad Arfan Wan Othman, Hartrisha Kaur Sandhu and Naresh Mayachandran.

The prosecution, meanwhile, was initially led by former Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram until his death in January 2023.

Subsequently, it was handled by deputy public prosecutors Datuk Ahmad Akram Gharib and Datuk Kamal Baharin Omar, assisted by DPPs Mohamad Mustaffa P Kunyalam, Deepa Nair Thevarahan, Nadia Mohd Izhar, Najwa Bistamam, Hazmida Harris Lee and Siti Aina Rodhiah Shikh Md Saud.

As the court prepares to hear the final winding-up submissions on Tuesday, 4 November, and deliver its judgment on 26 December, the question now lingers: will the Malaysian justice system uphold the principles of fairness and reasonable doubt, or will political convenience once again overshadow truth?

Because justice, as the defence has reminded the court, is not about appeasing headlines — it is about evidence, accountability and equal treatment under the law. – NMH

The post Najib Razak’s Defence Counsel Tears Apart 1MDB Prosecution’s Case first appeared on NMH.

PUTRAJAYA, 10 July – It took the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) 527 days to finally admit what many Malaysians had suspected: that a Royal Addendum signed by the then Yang di-Pertuan Agong, now Sultan of Pahang, did indeed decree for former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to serve the remainder of his sentence under house detention.

The belated admission has triggered widespread criticism, with senior lawyers cautioning that the government’s prolonged silence on the addendum risks becoming a ticking time bomb for the Madani administration, fuelling public perception that it has something to hide.

“If the AG had confirmed its existence from the start, this judicial review would have been heard by the High Court much earlier,” Shafee submitted before a three-member bench chaired by Chief Judge of Malaya, Tan Sri Hasnah Hashim. Also presiding were Justices Datuk Zabariah Yusof and Datuk Hanipah Farikullah.

Denying The Existence Of The Royal Addendum

Yesterday, in proceedings before the Federal Court, Shafee argued that the AG’s refusal to acknowledge the existence of the addendum had resulted in unnecessary delays and injustice to Najib.

At the previous hearing on 02 July, AG Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mokhtar finally conceded the existence of the addendum order but disputed its validity (see screenshot below). The order, dated 29 January 2024, was issued alongside the royal pardon that halved Najib’s prison sentence and reduced his fine.

Shafee said Najib’s legal team had been sent “from pillar to post” by various government respondents who refused to confirm the addendum’s existence, forcing the former premier to rely on affidavits by UMNO president and Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Pahang Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Wan Rosdy Wan Ismail, based on what they saw on the phone of Minister of Investment, Trade and Industry Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Aziz.

Najib, who is serving a reduced six-year sentence for a separate SRC International case, filed his judicial review leave application in April last year. The High Court dismissed it in July 2024, calling it speculative and a “fishing expedition”, while ruling the AG had no duty to disclose the addendum at that stage.

A Tragedy

“The High Court judge said the AG had no duty of candour, which is a tragedy,” Shafee told the Federal Court, emphasising that the AG was also guilty of not enforcing the royal decree.

During yesterday’s hearing, senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan confirmed that AG Dusuki Mokhtar had indeed admitted to the addendum’s existence in his submissions on 02 July. Chief Judge Tan Sri Hasnah Hashim remarked that this rendered the question of adducing fresh evidence no longer an issue.

However, Shamsul argued that the appeal was not merely academic as the legal criteria for fresh evidence had not been met, maintaining the AGC’s earlier written submissions.

The Federal Court reserved judgment and will inform parties of the decision date soon.

Lawyers Demand Accountability

Many senior lawyers have described the AG’s refusal to disclose the addendum earlier as bordering on contempt of royal authority, arguing that the AG has a constitutional duty of candour to uphold and implement decrees issued by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Senior lawyer and social activist Kamarudin Ahmad said, “This belated admission by the AG’s Chambers after nearly two years raises serious questions about whether the rule of law was upheld or undermined in Najib’s case. Finally after years of upheaval, Najib gets the justice that he deserves … and some heads must roll over the Titah Addendum fiasco.”

Senior Syariah lawyer Datuk Dr Mohd Zaidi Md Zain said, “It is shocking that it took over 500 days for the AG to admit what the public deserved to know from day one. Justice delayed is justice denied.”

He added that from an Islamic perspective, delaying justice or withholding rights is a grave wrongdoing, quoting:

“Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice.”
(Surah An-Nisa, 4:58)

“This verse reminds us that justice is a trust (amanah) and delaying it, especially for political reasons, is an oppression against the individual and a betrayal of public trust,” he said.

Immediate Execution of Royal Addendum

For Najib and his supporters, however, the AG’s belated admission may strengthen their call for the immediate execution of the Royal Addendum.

Among his supporters, frustration is mounting. Tiktoker Pah Merah said: “Tahanan rumah je pun, bukan bebas sepenuhnya. Adakah kerajaan terkini takut dijatuhkan jika Najib main FB di rumah? Pelik betul. “It’s only house arrest, not absolute freedom. Is the current government afraid it will fall if Najib posts on Facebook from home? It’s so baffling.”

For Najib and his camp, the AG’s admission only reinforces their demand that he be allowed to return home under house detention as decreed by the King. – NMH

The post Royal Addendum: AG’s Admission Shows Najib Should Already Be Home first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR, 20 June 2025 – For over six years, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s fate in the RM27 million SRC money laundering case hung in uncertainty, marked by endless delays and legal limbo. Today, justice was finally served. Despite repeated setbacks from the prosecution, the High Court ruled in Najib’s favor, granting him a DNAA and ending a painful chapter of legal uncertainty.

The case, which was initially based on three charges of money laundering supposedly committed in 2014, was marred by over 20 case management dates and five trial dates, nearly all of which saw delays from the prosecution’s side, with the exception of one occasion where the defence requested a postponement.

Justice Neglected When Case Lingers In Uncertainty

Despite being repeatedly asked to wait for the outcomes of other trials and representations submitted by the defendant, Najib’s case was left to linger in uncertainty. On June 11, 2025, the prosecution admitted that they were still unprepared to proceed. They requested even further delays, citing incomplete documentation and evidence, despite having been given over half a decade to prepare.

In a shocking admission in court, the prosecution stated that they would not be impacted if the court granted Najib’s DNAA request. The High Court Judge, Justice K. Muniandy, in his ruling, expressed:

1. “Charges cannot remain unresolved without a trial for an indefinite period. It is unfair and illegal.”
2. “The repeated delays demonstrate an abuse of court processes.”
3. “The prosecution itself is not ready and does not have the complete evidence to proceed.”

Thus, the court ruled in favor of granting the DNAA, citing the lack of any reasonable cause to maintain the charges without a definitive trial date, especially after such a prolonged delay since 2019.

This ruling serves as a reminder that justice is not only for the prosecution but must be equally accessible for the accused. No matter who the defendant is, they have the right to a fair and timely trial based on solid evidence. Najib had never asked for a free pass but only for a fair trial, not indefinite delays.

Shafee’s Statement at the Press Conference

In the wake of the court’s decision, Najib’s lead counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, addressed the press, emphasising the undue delays in the case and the need for justice to be served swiftly. Shafee expressed relief over the DNAA ruling, stressing that the prosecution’s inability to present adequate evidence after more than six years of preparation was a clear indication of the case’s lack of merit.

He also remarked that the decision should be seen as a reminder of the importance of ensuring that all accused persons are granted their right to a fair and timely trial. Shafee reiterated that the prolonged delays had not only impacted Najib but had also been detrimental to the legal system, which, he stated, must uphold the principles of justice for all.

Najib And Family Heave A Sigh Of Relief

The decision has come as a massive relief to Najib and his family. His son, Nazif Najib, expressed his gratitude to the judge for finally delivering a long-awaited decision. “This has been a long time coming,” Nazif said. His words reflect the collective sigh of relief felt by the entire family, as they eagerly await the court’s ruling on the Addendum to Najib’s house arrest on 1 and 2 July.

Najib’s family and supporters are now turning their attention to the next stage of legal proceedings and hoping for a resolution that will provide him with the justice he has long been waiting for. – NMH

The post Justice Finally Prevails In SRC 2.0 – Najib’s Long Wait Ends first appeared on NMH.

The Controversial House Arrest Addendum

The controversy centers around an alleged addendum to Najib Razak’s prison sentence, which his counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, claims was issued by the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah. This addendum purportedly allows Najib to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest rather than in prison. Shafee asserts that a letter containing this addendum was sent to Ahmad Terrirudin on January 29, 2024.

Despite these claims, both Ahmad Terrirudin and Dusuki Mokhtar have remained tight-lipped on the matter. When approached by the media, Ahmad Terrirudin, now a Federal Court judge, chose not to comment, while Dusuki Mokhtar simply replied, “No comment”.

Seven Letters Sent

At a media conference in the KL High Court on behalf of his client today, the prominent lawyer claimed that he sent at least seven letters to various individuals and institutions to confirm the existence of an addendum related to former Prime Minister Najib Razak’s sentence. The letters were intended to verify the addendum that allegedly allows Najib to serve the remainder of his jail sentence under house arrest.

Shafee stated that none of the recipients responded to his letters or acknowledged their receipt. He emphasized that if no such addendum existed, there would be no harm in replying to his letters to clarify the matter. This development comes as Najib seeks to enforce a royal decree that would permit him to serve his sentence under house arrest rather than in prison.

He even compared the ongoing judicial proceedings concerning Najib’s royal addendum hearing to Nazi-era governance, criticising the presiding judge for making an error.

Legal Proceedings and Public Reactions

Najib Razak, who is currently serving a reduced sentence of six years and a fine of RM50 million for his alleged involvement in the SRC International Sdn Bhd scandal, has been pushing for the enforcement of this addendum. His legal team has filed for a judicial review to have the addendum fully produced and enforced. However, their efforts have been met with significant legal and bureaucratic hurdles.

The Court of Appeal recently allowed Najib’s appeal by a majority decision, ordering the case to be reverted to the High Court for further consideration. This decision has sparked a mix of reactions from the public and legal experts alike. Many are questioning the transparency and accountability of the legal process, especially given the silence from key figures who are expected to provide clarity on the matter.

The Role of the Attorney General’s Chambers

The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) has been notably silent on the issue, which has only fueled further speculation and concern. The lack of communication from the AGC has been described as “disturbing” by Court of Appeal judge Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Jaffri, who questioned the absence of any letter from the AGC disputing the addendum’s existence.

This silence is particularly significant given the AGC’s role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice is served. The public’s confidence in the legal system is at stake, and the continued silence from the AGC only serves to undermine this confidence.

The public and legal experts alike are closely watching the developments in this case, as it could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future. The outcome of Najib’s appeal and the confirmation of the royal addendum could significantly impact his legal standing and potential release from prison. – NMH

The post House Arrest Addendum: Former AG’s Silence Is Deafening first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR, 23 May 2025 — Former Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Tun Razak has initiated contempt of court proceedings against former Attorney General Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh — a legal development that will be a focal point of discussion at this weekend’s Townhall Rakyat.

Filed on 21 May, the application seeks the court’s leave to begin committal proceedings against the former AG for allegedly misleading the High Court regarding a Royal Addendum Order that instructed Najib’s sentence be served under house arrest. The order, dated 29 January 2024 and issued by the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong (also the Sultan of Pahang), had reportedly been validated by the Pahang Royal Council earlier this year.

The AGC, meanwhile, has defended Terrirudin, saying Najib’s contempt bid ‘premature and unfair’ as appeal on royal addendum is still pending.

Deliberate Obstruction of Justice

Najib’s lawyer, Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah, accused Tan Sri Ahmad of concealing this from the court despite knowing of its existence — an act Shafee described as a deliberate obstruction of justice and a breach of the government’s duty of candour.

According to the Townhall organiser, this escalating legal drama is expected to take centre stage during the 5th session of Townhall Rakyat, happening Saturday, 24 May at 3:00 PM, at Gateway Mall, Kuala Lumpur. Themed “Law and Human Rights,” the session will explore legal rights, the role of the judiciary, and public concerns surrounding recent legal controversies.

The panel features distinguished legal minds: Dato’ Seri Rajan Navaratnam, Dato’ Hasnal Rezua Merican, and newly announced guest Datuk Abu Bakar Isa Ramat, who is expected to offer insights into key legal documents that surfaced during the early stages of the 1MDB prosecution in 2019.

Addendum on House Arrest for Najib

Moderating the session is Tuan Haji Kamarudin Ahmad, a senior lawyer who has served as moderator in all previous townhall events by the said organiser. Also joining the panel is Ms Wong Siew Mun, a vocal representative of civil society from Pahang, who is expected to speak candidly about public discontent over perceived injustices involving the Royal Addendum and the treatment of the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s decree.

Organisers have encouraged the public to attend and raise their questions directly with the panel. The Townhall aims to empower citizens with a better understanding of their legal rights while providing a platform for critical discussion on issues affecting public trust in legal institutions.

There will be LIVE feeds from various media organisations and blogs, including newmalaysiaherald.com via https://www.youtube.com/@NewMalaysiaHerald.

For more information, email communicationsapmedia@gmail.com or contact.nmhmedia@gmail.com. – NMH

The post Najib Razak’s Legal Battle Against Former AG To Feature At Townhall On Law, Human Rights first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR, 28 April 2025 — In yet another twist to a saga that has spanned more than 15 months, the Royal Addendum case involving former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has been delayed once more, drawing sharp reactions not only from the defence but also from the nation’s highest court.

The High Court on Monday granted a stay on all proceedings related to Najib’s judicial review application regarding the Royal Addendum—an alleged decree by the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong allowing him to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest. The delay came following a Federal Court decision to hear the government’s challenge against a lower court ruling that allowed Najib’s appeal to proceed.

With this latest development, Najib’s long-standing pursuit of justice has once again hit a legal roadblock. The Federal Court has fixed July 1 and 2, 2025, to hear the government’s appeal, resulting in a temporary pause to the High Court’s gag order hearing and related applications—including third-party bids to hold watching briefs.

Royal Addendum Frustration

Najib’s lead counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, revealed that the Federal Court itself expressed concern over the protracted delay, noting that the matter has remained unresolved for over a year and four months.

“We are extremely disappointed. Despite repeated efforts to expedite this case in the High Court, no meaningful progress was made. Even the Federal Court today was visibly perturbed by the delay,” Shafee told reporters.

He also stressed that the Royal Addendum issue concerns not only Najib’s fundamental rights as a citizen but also raises broader implications involving public interest and constitutional integrity.

The Court of Appeal had in January 2025 affirmed the addendum’s legitimacy and returned the matter to the High Court for trial. Yet, on the final day of the appeal period, Attorney General Datuk Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar filed a last-minute application to the Federal Court, seeking to overturn the appellate court’s ruling. This move, seen by many as a strategic delay, has indefinitely stalled the High Court proceedings once again.

Where Is Due Process When Justice Is Delayed?

Many of Najib’s supporters are understandably upset, firmly believing that Najib’s continued imprisonment defies not only the will of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong but also undermines the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal treatment under the law.

“Najib should have been under house arrest as mandated since 29 January 2024 —15 long months ago! The Pahang Palace and even the Prime Minister haS acknowledged the addendum’s validity. So why is justice still being denied?” — wrote supporter Muralitharan Ramachandran in a Facebook post earlier today.

In an unusually candid moment, the Federal Court instructed the Attorney General’s Chambers to file their official appeal within seven days—half the normal window—signalling a recognition that time is of the essence. Shafee added that the apex court is expected to address critical questions of law, including the admissibility of new evidence and the evolving role of the AG, who initially acted solely as the government’s legal advisor but is now also representing other respondents.

Royal Addendum Roadblock

The implications of the upcoming July hearing are enormous. Should the AG’s appeal succeed, Najib’s chances of a fair and expedited hearing could be crushed under the weight of further legal obstruction. If it fails, the matter will return to the High Court, but only after even more delay—prolonging an ordeal many already view as a miscarriage of justice.

As Shafee pointed out, “This case isn’t just about Najib—it’s about whether our legal system can still be trusted to uphold the fundamental rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution. Justice delayed is justice denied. And justice is being denied, once again.” – NMH

The post Royal Addendum: Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied Once Again first appeared on NMH.

PUTRAJAYA – In Monday’s testimony at the ongoing 1MDB trial, former investigating officer R Rajagopal revealed that Tun Mahathir Mohamad personally summoned the police for a briefing on the 1MDB investigation just five days after assuming office as Malaysia’s Prime Minister in May 2018.

Rajagopal, who was part of the police team investigating 1MDB, stated that on May 15, 2018, he attended the briefing at the Perdana Leadership Foundation in Putrajaya alongside then Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Dato’ Mohamad Fuzi Harun and former Bukit Aman commercial crime investigation department (CCID) director Datuk Seri Amar Singh. The purpose of the meeting was to update the newly minted Prime Minister on the progress of the investigation.

“We briefed Tun Mahathir using a PowerPoint presentation, highlighting that based on our investigation, the proceeds of 1MDB had been deposited into former Prime Minister Najib Razak’s account,” Rajagopal said. “Mahathir responded by stating, ‘You have to complete the investigation with evidence.’”

IMDB Matter Brought To AG Chambers

Following the briefing, Rajagopal confirmed that the matter was referred to the Attorney-General’s Chambers, and an anti-money laundering report was filed to officially begin the investigation.

During cross-examination, Najib’s defense counsel, Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah, sought more details about the meeting. Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Ahmad Akram Gharib objected, arguing that such inquiries were “scandalous” and not relevant to the trial, since Mahathir was not a witness.

However, Shafee pressed on, insisting that the questioning was vital. “Once the DPP opened this matter, they can’t close it,” he argued. “This is relevant because I want to demonstrate that Najib never directed or interfered with the investigation.”

Justice Collin Lawrence Sequerah allowed Shafee to proceed but cautioned him to stay focused on the matter at hand.

In response to Shafee’s questions, Rajagopal confirmed that Mahathir had called the police to the Perdana Leadership Foundation for the briefing before officially taking his seat in the Prime Minister’s Office. “He wanted to know the findings of the 1MDB investigation,” Rajagopal said.

When asked whether Mahathir had questioned the pace of the investigation, Rajagopal said he couldn’t recall any such inquiry. However, he emphasized that Mahathir did not indicate any intention to charge anyone during the meeting. “I simply briefed him on the wrongdoings and the people involved,” Rajagopal added.

Shafee further probed whether Rajagopal’s role in the task force was affected by any dissatisfaction from Mahathir. Rajagopal clarified, “If Mahathir had been unhappy with my work, I would have been replaced.”

1MDB Discussion At Ilham Tower

On another note, a former journalist told NMH that a few days after Pakatan Harapan assumed power in May 2018, Tun Mahathir had called for a meeting of certain ‘personalities’ for a discussion about 1MDB at the late Tun Daim’s office in Ilham Tower. Included in the list of invitees was Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, the current Chief Justice. Tengku Maimun was then a Court of Appeal judge. The journalist said that none of the personalities were ‘allowed’ to speak to the media who were stationed outside the building. They only knew it was a discussion on 1MDB.

Najib is facing 25 charges related to money laundering and abuse of power in connection with the alleged misappropriation of RM2.28 billion in 1MDB funds, which were deposited into his AmBank accounts between 2011 and 2014.

The trial resumes. – NMH

The post 1MDB Trial: Former PM Mahathir’s Alleged Interference Raises Concerns first appeared on NMH.