Najib defence’s claims that trial judge was 'prejudiced', 'incompetent' were uncalled for, says lead prosecutor

PUTRAJAYA (April 22): Claims that High Court judge Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali was “prejudiced” and “hopelessly incompetent” in the SRC International Sdn Bhd trial were entirely unwarranted, said ad hoc prosecutor Datuk V Sithambaram.

The prosecutor asserted that there was no evidence that the conduct of Justice Nazlan warranted the need of being labelled “prejudiced” and “incompetent” as claimed during the defence's appeal in its effort to put into question the grounds of judgement provided. 

“Based on the evidence adduced, there is no basis to say that the judge was the second prosecutor.

“There was no basis in calling the judge hopelessly incompetent or demonstrated incompetence.

“This submission is made to save the integrity of this ground of judgement, to ensure that the due administration of justice is not in any way taken,” Sithambaram said in his reply submission at the Court of Appeal today.

Justice Nazlan had last year convicted former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak of all seven charges — one count of abuse of power, three counts of criminal breach of trust and another three counts of money laundering — in relation to the RM42 million belonging to former 1Malaysia Development Bhd unit SRC that went into his personal account.

Sithambaram, however, made it clear that the prosecution's job is not to defend the judge per se, but instead to defend the grounds of judgement.

“The prosecution is here not to defend the judge, but to defend the grounds of judgement that we believe is correct,” Sithambaram proclaimed.

Sithambaram added that the narrative being pushed by Najib’s defence is incredibly dangerous as it may cause undue controversy amongst the public and therefore should be avoided. 

On April 6, Najib’s lead counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah was previously cautioned by the Court of Appeal’s three-member bench over his choice of words in describing the High Court judge presiding the trial.

Shafee claimed that Justice Nazlan “had poisoned his grounds of judgment” and is not experienced enough “to handle the trial of the century".

In reply to this argument, Sithambaram elaborated that the defence based these claims on two prior actions of the trial judge.

Firstly, that the trial judge had added certain information into his finalised written grounds of judgement, which he did not mention in his oral ruling. This inconsistency, according to the defence, purportedly resulted in two different judgements which consequently, prejudiced Najib

“There is no such thing as two judgements but only one when an accused is either acquitted or convicted of a criminal charge.

“Therefore, the question of the learned trial judge (Nazlan) having delivered two judgements in respect of his prima facie does not arise at all,” Sithambaram argued.

Further, Sithambaram submitted that Justice Nazlan had every right to add further grounds in his ruling and that it did not go against any law.

The second point was on the trial judge’s treatment of the 42nd prosecution witness, former SRC director Datuk Suboh Mohd Yassin, which the defence asserted that Justice Nazlan provided unsolicited answers for the witness and made findings into facts.

But the lead prosecutor again pointed out that the High Court judge did nothing that was illegal and biased in accordance with the law.

“The respondent submits that the learned judge did not put words into the mouth of PW42 (Suboh) as alleged by the appellant (Najib).

“The learned judge (Nazlan) merely made observations and findings based on the totality of PW42’s evidence,” he added.

After being found guilty of all the seven charges last year, Najib was sentenced to 12 years in jail and a RM210 million fine. He is now appealing against the conviction and sentence at the Court of Appeal. 

The prosecution is set to end their submission today in front of the three-member bench led by Justice Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil. The other members of the bench are Justices Datuk Has Zanah Mehat and Datuk Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera.

The appeal hearing continues.

Get the latest news @ www.EdgeProp.my

Subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest stories and updates 

Click here for more property stories