KUALA LUMPUR (July 21): Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's application to seek further evidence to his SRC International Sdn Bhd conviction by calling five additional witnesses should be dismissed by the Federal Court, said the prosecution.  

The prosecution averred that the evidence sought by the former premier to call four Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers including three who quizzed former High Court judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, who convicted Najib, was not relevant to his appeal.

Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Mohd Ashrof Adrin Kamarul, in his affirmed affidavit in reply filed on Thursday (July 21), said Najib's application to call the three who had quizzed Justice Nazlan was irrelevant to the charges the former premier had been convicted of.

“[Furthermore,] this evidence is in the possession of the applicant (Najib) and cannot be classified as additional or fresh evidence.

“The alleged additional evidence applied for does not show any conflict of interest involving Justice Nazlan who had presided over the SRC trial. I further aver that Justice Nazlan's involvement in his previous capacity as general counsel and company secretary to the Maybank group in the RM140 million loan to Putra Perdana Development Sdn Bhd (PPD) and RM4.17 billion loan to 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) has not been proven and mere conjecture.

“In any event, the alleged evidence is irrelevant to the charges faced by the applicant (Najib) in the appeal,” Ashrof added.

Ashrof further affirmed that the allegations against the then High Court judge does not bar Justice Nazlan from presiding over the SRC trial and there was no conflict of interest proven against the judge.

“Najib had failed to show any connection between the fresh evidence application and the charges that he faced in the appeals [to the Federal Court],” he added.

On July 14, Najib affirmed an additional affidavit to support adducing further evidence citing he allegedly knew details of the MACC probe against Justice Nazlan and called for the three investigators to be called as a witness to adduce further evidence.

He named the three MACC officers who quizzed Justice Nazlan as Asrul Ridzuan Ahmad Rustami, Noor Syazana Kamin and Mohammad Zamri Zainul Abidin (Head of Investigations), who supervised the other two.

The former premier was found guilty by Justice Nazlan on July 28, 2020 of all seven charges in relation to the SRC case, and he was sentenced to 12 years in jail and fined RM210 million.

The Court of Appeal had on Dec 8, 2021, upheld the conviction and sentence, as Najib, who is also former finance minister and ex-BN chairman, is facing his final appeal at the Federal Court scheduled to be heard on Aug 15.

Besides wanting to adduce further evidence by calling former 1MDB managing director Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi and MACC investigating officer Rosli Hussain, Najib wants to call the three MACC officers mentioned above.

Ashrof further said Najib already knew of Justice Nazlan's previous Maybank position before and during the SRC trial and denied the allegation of suppression of material evidence by the prosecution.

“The alleged knowledge and involvement of Justice Nazlan through the so-called actions of Maybank Investment Bank allegedly setting up SRC is pure conjecture and unsupported evidence,” he said.

“Najib has not by any admissible evidence established that Justice Nazlan knew of the RM140 million loan personally (to PPD). It was also open to Najib that he ought to have known that Maybank [was] 1MDB's banker and that Justice Nazlan was its general counsel and company secretary as such information was in the public domain,” the DPP added.

Three journalists — one from New Straits Times, one from The Star and one formerly from Malaysiakini — affirmed separate affidavits produced by the prosecution over their articles regarding Justice Nazlan's previous affiliation with Maybank which were in the public domain since 2018.

Another affidavit was produced from a Maybank officer affirming Justice Nazlan's position from its annual report.

Ashrof pointed out that SRC and 1MDB are two distinct legal entities, noting that SRC operated independently and separately from 1MDB, and also reported to the then prime minister, who is also the applicant in this case.

Najib, he added, had failed to show Maybank's role in the alleged setting up of SRC.

“I state that the incorporation of SRC did not have anything to do with Maybank Investment Bank,” he said.

In his affidavit in reply, Ashrof alluded to SRC's formation, which he said took place in 2010, and by Feb 21, 2012, SRC, which was formerly a subsidiary under 1MDB, was directly placed under Minister of Finance Inc (MOF Inc), where the applicant (Najib) was the ultimate shareholder due to his position as the then finance minister.

On Justice Nazlan's purported recorded statements to the MACC, Ashrof said they are privileged statements, inadmissible and constitute hearsay evidence under the Official Secrets Act 1972 (OSA).

“The contents of the interview with MACC (if true) have absolutely no bearing on SRC trial, as SRC is an MOF company since February 2012, whilst the purported default of a 1MDB loan occurred in 2015.

“This irrelevant, inadmissible and OSA protected interview is illegally and maliciously published (if true) to divert the finding of culpability against the applicant (Najib) by Justice Nazlan," he said.

Ashrof also contested one of Najib's exhibits showing a timeline pertaining to Justice Nazlan's purported conflict of interest and described it as “a worthless document and the real purpose of him producing it was to demonise Justice Nazlan in the public opinion” before the hearing of the application to adduce further evidence.

The DPP reiterated there was no conflict of interest for Justice Nazlan to preside over the trial and that the application to adduce further evidence is devoid of merit and has failed to provide the necessary justification to allow it.