KUALA LUMPUR: The 1MDB civil trial has raised a question that goes beyond the individual defendants before the court: What is the responsibility of a CEO when billions are lost under his watch?

The question is particularly pertinent in the case of former 1MDB CEO Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi, who was not merely the company’s chief executive.

As highlighted by senior counsel GK Ganesan during cross-examination, Shahrol held three positions — managing director, CEO and Board member.

Ganesan’s central argument was that, in those roles, Shahrol had a duty to ensure that material risks were placed before the Board and that proper advice was given before major investments proceeded.

Shahrol rejected the suggestion that he had been negligent.

But the evidence raises an important corporate-governance question:

Where does the CEO’s responsibility end when the Board ultimately makes the decision?

The Serdar Field Warning

One of the clearest examples came from the proposed US$1 billion investment involving PetroSaudi International.

Kelvin Tan, who was the Director of Investments for 1MDB had written to the management in October 2009 warning that both Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan claimed rights over the Serdar Field, the asset linked to the proposed investment.

Shahrol agreed that this represented a genuine risk.

Yet the Board was not informed of the issue before the investment proceeded, according to the evidence highlighted by Ganesan.

Ganesan put it to Shahrol that, given his positions, he should have advised the Board to hold off until the ownership dispute was resolved.

That goes to the heart of the CEO’s role.

A Board can only make an informed decision based on the information placed before it.

If management knows of a material risk but the Board is not told, can responsibility simply rest with the Board for approving the transaction?

Or does responsibility also extend to the executive responsible for ensuring that the Board is properly informed?

Why Was Jho Low The Channel?

Another striking part of the testimony concerned Shahrol’s communications with the then Prime Minister.

Asked how he communicated with the Prime Minister, Shahrol said he had “alternative means” — through Jho Low (Low Taek Jho).

Ganesan pointed out that Low held no formal position in 1MDB.

He also raised the requirement for Federal Government approval for an investment of that size. Shahrol said that, to his knowledge, such approval had not been obtained.

The question is therefore not simply why Jho Low was involved.

It is why the CEO of a government-owned company relied on someone with no formal position in 1MDB to communicate with the Prime Minister on matters involving billion-dollar investments.

If a CEO believed that a matter required the Prime Minister’s attention, why was the communication not made through formal corporate and governmental channels?

Vincent Beng’s Defence Line

The same broader question of responsibility has emerged through the defence’s questioning, including that of Nur Syafinaz Vani, counsel for Vincent Beng, former Chief Investment Officer of 1MDB.

The defence has sought to distinguish between individuals who had actual authority over 1MDB’s decisions and those who were merely employees operating within the company’s management structure.

That distinction is particularly relevant to Kelvin Tan.

Ganesan established that Tan was a staff member, did not sit on the Board and was not named in either the Public Accounts Committee or National Audit Department reports.

When Ganesan asked Shahrol whether it was fair to have named Tan as the seventh defendant, Shahrol answered no.

The defence position therefore raises a simple question:

If a staff member without Board authority can be pursued for losses arising from major investment decisions, what level of responsibility should attach to those at the highest levels of management?

What Did The Law Require In 2009?

There is an important legal distinction when considering Shahrol’s responsibilities.

The PetroSaudi transaction took place in 2009. The governing statute at the time was therefore the Companies Act 1965, not the Companies Act 2016.

Under Section 131B of the Companies Act 1965, the business and affairs of a company were managed by, or under the direction of, its Board.

Section 132, as amended in 2007, required directors to exercise their powers for a proper purpose and in good faith in the best interests of the company, as well as to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence. Crucially, the provision’s definition of “director” included the chief executive officer.

That is significant in Shahrol’s case.

He was not merely an employee of 1MDB. He was its CEO and, as highlighted in court, also its managing director and a Board member.

There was, however, another layer specific to 1MDB.

Article 117 of 1MDB’s Memorandum and Articles of Association required the Prime Minister’s prior written approval for specified matters, including investments and major financial commitments.

That did not, by itself, turn the Prime Minister into 1MDB’s Board of Directors. The Board remained responsible for the company’s affairs.

The question, therefore, is not simply whether the Prime Minister had a role in approving major decisions.

It is whether 1MDB’s management and Board properly discharged their own responsibilities in preparing, evaluating and placing those decisions before the Board, and in seeking the required approval through the proper channels.

If the CEO knew of a material risk — such as the ownership dispute surrounding the Serdar Field — what was his responsibility to ensure that the Board knew about it?

And if Prime Ministerial approval was required, what was the proper corporate process for obtaining it?

Those questions go directly to CEO accountability.

Why Is Shahrol A Witness?

That brings us to the uncomfortable question surrounding Shahrol.

He has appeared as a prosecution witness in the 1MDB-Tanore criminal trial and has testified in other proceedings.

Yet he is no longer a defendant in the current US$8 billion 1MDB civil suit.

That does not, by itself, establish that he bears no civil or criminal responsibility. Nor does being a CEO automatically establish liability.

But it does raise a legitimate question:

What distinguishes a CEO who is an important witness to alleged wrongdoing from a CEO who should bear responsibility for decisions made under his management?

The answer lies in the evidence — what he knew, what he advised, what he communicated to the Board and government, what risks he escalated and whether he exercised the standard of care required of his position.

The Bigger Question for Corporate Malaysia

The 1MDB case should not create the impression that CEOs are responsible only when things go well and become mere witnesses when things go disastrously wrong.

A CEO cannot simply be a conduit between political principals, advisers and a Board.

The role carries professional responsibility.

That includes asking difficult questions, challenging questionable assumptions, ensuring that material risks reach the Board and, when necessary, advising that a transaction should not proceed.

The law applicable at the time recognised that responsibility.

The court must now determine what the evidence says about Shahrol’s own conduct.

But there is another question that deserves attention.

If The CEO Is Not Responsible, Then Why Is Najib The First Defendant?

The bigger question is not simply whether Shahrol should be liable.

It is how responsibility is allocated in the first place.

The 2009 legal framework placed management and corporate decision-making within the Board, while 1MDB’s Article 117 imposed an additional requirement for the Prime Minister’s prior written approval on specified matters.

That means the existence of Article 117 does not, by itself, answer the question of who was responsible for preparing, evaluating and placing investment decisions before the Board.

Nor does the fact that the Prime Minister’s approval was required necessarily mean that the CEO and directors ceased to have their own responsibilities.

And this brings the issue back to the civil suit.

If a CEO who was also managing director and Board member is not responsible for decisions made under his watch, then why was former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak named as the first defendant?

Najib was not 1MDB’s CEO.

He was not its managing director.

He was not responsible for its day-to-day management.

But he was Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and chairman of 1MDB’s Board of Advisers, and Article 117 specifically required his prior written approval for certain major matters. Those facts are central to the case and must ultimately be determined in light of the evidence.

The court will have to determine what each person knew, what each was responsible for, what was placed before the Board, what approvals were obtained and whether the conduct alleged caused the losses claimed.

But as Shahrol returns to the witness stand, the question remains:

If the CEO who ran 1MDB, the managing director who managed its affairs and the Board member who participated in its governance is not responsible for the decisions made under his watch, then why is the former prime minister — named as the first defendant — at the front of the civil claim?

That is not a question of guilt.

It is a question of corporate accountability.– NMH

The post If The CEO Is Not Responsible, Then Why Is Najib The First Defendant? first appeared on NMH.

Liquidator Appointed Over 29 Offshore Entities, the 1MDB Civil Trial was told

KUALA LUMPUR, 10 August 2026 – The 1MDB Civil Trial turned to the recovery and tracing of allegedly misappropriated funds today, with offshore asset recovery specialist Angela Barkhouse telling the High Court that she had been appointed liquidator for 29 offshore entities linked to the transactions under investigation.

Barkhouse, managing director of Kroll (Cayman) Ltd, is the third witness in the US$5.64 billion civil suit brought by 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) and its subsidiaries against former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and several other defendants.

She said the various appointments were made between July 2021 and May 2025.

Among the entities identified were Lucetta Investments Ltd, PetroSaudi Oil Services Ltd, TKIL Global Investments Ltd, PetroSaudi International, Aabar International Investments PJS Ltd, Alsen Chance Holdings Ltd, Blackrock Commodities (Global) Ltd and Platinum Global Luxury Services Ltd.

Barkhouse told the court that her analysis enabled her team to trace funds allegedly misappropriated from 1MDB through a complex network of offshore entities associated with parties allegedly involved in the fraud.

She said her investigations remained ongoing, with further information continuing to be obtained and analysed on behalf of the liquidated estates and claims pursued against parties alleged to have facilitated the movement or laundering of the funds.

Findings Based on Retrospective Reconciliation

An important aspect of Barkhouse’s testimony, however, was the nature of her investigation.

Under questioning, she confirmed that her findings were based on a retrospective reconciliation.

The investigation itself was conducted in 2024 and completed in 2025 – several years after the transactions in question and long after earlier investigations into 1MDB had begun.

Barkhouse explained that the figures and information used in the reconciliation had been obtained from staff within her firm, after which the information was brought together and totalled.

The distinction is important because her evidence was not based on firsthand observation of the original transactions. Rather, it involved reconstructing and reconciling information available to her team at a later stage.

Barkhouse also acknowledged that she did not have the final overall figure for the amount recovered.

Although she was involved in recovery work, she could not attest to a final consolidated recovery figure.

That prompted questions over the scope of the reconciliation – including what information was available to the team at the time and whether the exercise was intended to establish the full amount ultimately recovered or to address a more specific aspect of the liquidated estates.

The issue may become significant as the defence continues to examine the relationship between the amounts allegedly misappropriated, funds traced and sums subsequently recovered.

Shafee Puts Jho Low at the Centre of Questioning

During cross-examination, lead defence counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah focused on the role of fugitive financier Low Taek Jho, better known as Jho Low.

Shafee asked Barkhouse whether she had encountered Low’s name during her investigation.

She confirmed that she had.

Shafee then put to her that Jho Low lay at the centre of the controversy surrounding 1MDB and the alleged conspiracy to destroy the sovereign wealth fund.

Barkhouse responded: “Among others, yes.”

When Shafee asked whether she agreed that Jho Low was the main person behind the alleged conspiracy, however, Barkhouse said she was uncertain.

She explained that her focus was on those who had received the allegedly misappropriated funds.

That exchange is significant because it illustrates the distinction between Barkhouse’s role as a liquidator and the wider question of who ultimately bears responsibility for the alleged wrongdoing.

Her mandate, as described in court, is principally concerned with identifying and pursuing assets and claims connected to the liquidated estates. Determining the overall hierarchy of responsibility for the alleged 1MDB fraud is a broader question for the court.

Tracing Funds Versus Establishing Responsibility

The distinction between tracing funds and establishing responsibility could become an important feature of the next stage of the trial.

Barkhouse’s evidence provides the plaintiffs with a detailed picture of the complex offshore network through which funds were allegedly moved.

But the existence of an offshore entity, a transfer or a recipient does not necessarily, on its own, establish who authorised a transaction, who knew about it or who was ultimately responsible for the alleged misappropriation.

That distinction is likely to be tested further during cross-examination.

It also follows the broader pattern established during the first week of the trial, when defence counsel questioned former investigator Richard Templeman about the methodology and documentary basis of his investigation.

The defence has repeatedly sought to distinguish between evidence showing where money went and evidence establishing who was responsible for sending it there.

The Recovery Question Remains

Barkhouse’s inability to confirm the final overall recovery figure also leaves open an issue that has already featured prominently in the defence’s narrative.

At a press conference last week, Shafee said approximately RM31 billion had been recovered by 1MDB and its subsidiaries – a figure exceeding the approximately RM24 billion being claimed in the civil action.

That figure was not put to Barkhouse as part of this morning’s evidence, and she did not attest to it.

Nevertheless, her testimony that she had been involved in recovery work but did not have the final consolidated recovery figure raises a question that may warrant further examination – how the various recovery exercises, liquidated estates and sums recovered fit together in determining the amount ultimately sought from the defendants.

That is particularly relevant in a civil action where the plaintiffs are seeking to recover billions of ringgit.

A More Complex Picture of the Evidence

Barkhouse’s testimony therefore adds another layer to the 1MDB Civil Trial.

On one level, the court has heard evidence of an extensive tracing exercise involving 29 offshore entities and a network spanning multiple jurisdictions.

On another, the evidence highlights the complexity of reconstructing transactions years after they occurred, with the liquidator relying on information compiled by her team and reconciling figures retrospectively.

Her evidence also stops short of identifying Jho Low as the sole person responsible for the alleged conspiracy, with Barkhouse telling the court that her focus was on recipients of allegedly misappropriated funds.

As the trial continues, the court will have to consider not only the tracing of the funds but also what the evidence establishes about the roles, knowledge and responsibilities of the various defendants.

The hearing continues tomorrow. – NMH

The post 1MDB Civil Trial: The Money Trail and Questions Over Recovery first appeared on NMH.

KUALA LUMPUR, 04 Aug – The government’s decision to pursue a RM24 billion civil claim against Datuk Seri Najib Razak has come under renewed scrutiny after the defence revealed that authorities have already recovered more than RM31 billion linked to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).

Najib’s lead counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, disclosed the figure at a press conference after court proceedings on Tuesday, following the conclusion of testimony by the plaintiff’s witness, former UK investigator Richard Templeman.

Shafee said the recovery figure was disclosed during the discovery process in the civil proceedings, questioning why it had not been made public despite exceeding the amount being claimed against Najib.

According to him, the RM31 billion recovered did not include the value of remaining 1MDB assets such as Bandar Malaysia and Edra, which could further increase the total recoverable value.

“The plaintiff is claiming RM24 billion, yet documents disclosed during discovery show recoveries have already exceeded RM31 billion,” Shafee said, adding that the Treasury should explain why these figures had not been publicly disclosed.

He argued that once the recovered funds and remaining assets were taken into account, questions naturally arose over the basis and quantum of the government’s civil claim.

Templeman’s Testimony Concludes

Templeman, a former investigator engaged by UK-based law firm Kobre & Kim in relation to international asset recovery efforts involving 1MDB, completed his testimony after two days of cross-examination.

The trial will resume on Wednesday with former DAP national publicity secretary Tony Pua expected to take the witness stand as the plaintiff’s next witness.

Defence Challenges ‘Top-Down’ Narrative

Reflecting on Templeman’s evidence, Shafee said the defence had successfully challenged the government’s assertion that Najib exercised complete control over 1MDB through a so-called “top-down approach”.

He said Templeman eventually accepted that the documents shown in court reflected the normal governance structure of a company, where decisions were made by the board of directors before being referred to the shareholder for approval where required.

According to Shafee, this was consistent with the governance framework of a government-linked company and did not, by itself, demonstrate that Najib directed the company’s day-to-day affairs.

The defence also referred Templeman to Article 117 of 1MDB’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, a provision frequently cited throughout the proceedings.

Shafee said Templeman acknowledged that, based on the documents he had reviewed, he had not seen any instance where Najib exercised powers under Article 117 to override the board’s decisions.

No Documents Showing Najib Directed The 1MDB Board

Shafee further highlighted that Templeman agreed there were no documents showing Najib had directed the 1MDB board on its decisions.

He also noted that Templeman was unaware that a handwriting expert had previously testified that the signatures and handwritten notes purportedly belonging to Najib on certain 1MDB board meeting minutes were not his.

The defence further pointed out that the board meeting minutes themselves contained no record of any other attendees or participants, giving the impression that Najib was effectively “having a monologue with himself” rather than recording discussions involving other board members.

On the issue of fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho, or Jho Low, Templeman disagreed that Jho Low acted as a shadow director controlling 1MDB from outside the company. However, he accepted that there were some instances suggesting Jho Low’s involvement in the company’s affairs.

With Templeman’s evidence concluded, the trial is expected to enter a new phase with Tony Pua’s testimony when proceedings resume on Wednesday. – NMH

The post 1MDB Civil Trial: With RM31 Billion Recovered, RM24 Billion Suit Questioned first appeared on NMH.

PUTRAJAYA, 30 July 2026 — The Court of Appeal is set to hear Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor’s applications to adduce fresh evidence in her appeal against her conviction in the RM1.25 billion solar hybrid project case on 1 September 2026.

The applications came up for case management on Thursday at 9am before Deputy Registrar Mahyudin bin Mohmad Som, who issued directions for both parties to complete the exchange of affidavits and written submissions ahead of the hearing.

Rosmah, the applicant, has filed the relevant Notices of Motion together with supporting affidavits seeking leave to introduce fresh evidence in her pending appeal. The documents have been served on the prosecution.

Rosmah Fresh Evidence Application: Court Sets Deadlines

The Court directed the prosecution, as respondent, to file its Affidavit in Reply on or before 12 August.

Rosmah will then have until 19 August to file her Affidavit in Reply, if any.

Both parties are required to file their written submissions by 26 August, followed by a pre-hearing case management on 27 August.

The applications to adduce fresh evidence are tentatively scheduled to be heard on 1 September.

Significantly, 1 September had previously been fixed as the first day of the hearing of Rosmah’s substantive appeal against her conviction and sentence.

The latest directions mean the appellate court is expected to first deal with the fresh evidence applications before the substantive appeal proceeds.

Appeal Stems From Sarawak Solar Project Case

Rosmah’s appeal arises from her conviction on 1 September 2022 on three corruption charges connected to a RM1.25 billion project to supply solar hybrid energy to 369 rural schools in Sarawak.

The charges involved allegations that Rosmah solicited RM194 million in gratification and received RM6.5 million from Jepak Holdings Sdn Bhd managing director Saidi Abang Samsudin in connection with helping the company secure the project from the Education Ministry.

High Court judge Mohamed Zaini Mazlan found Rosmah guilty on all three charges and sentenced her to 10 years’ imprisonment on each charge, to run concurrently, as well as imposing a total fine of RM970 million.

Rosmah has consistently challenged the conviction and sentence and filed an appeal in September 2022. Her subsequent petition of appeal set out 127 grounds challenging the High Court’s decision.

Rosmah’s Substantive Appeal Yet to Be Heard

The substantive appeal has yet to be determined by the Court of Appeal.

Its hearing had earlier been scheduled to begin on 1 July 2026, before being postponed to 1 September amid separate proceedings concerning Rosmah’s bid to disqualify the trial judge.

The latest applications introduce another issue for the appellate court to determine: whether Rosmah should be permitted to place fresh evidence before the Court of Appeal as part of her challenge to the conviction.

The nature and significance of that evidence will likely become clearer when the applications are argued before the court.

For now, the parties have until late August to complete their affidavits and submissions before returning for the pre-hearing case management on 27 August. – NMH

The post Rosmah Fresh Evidence Bid Set For 1 September Hearing first appeared on NMH.

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.