Najib's application to pause US$1.3b payment to SRC set for May 13

THE High Court today set May 13 to deliver its decision on the application by former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to stay the execution of the court judgment ordering him to pay US$1.3 billion to SRC International Sdn. Bhd.

Judge Datuk Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin also set the same date for a decision on costs after noting that there were additional written submissions that still needed to be examined.

On March 31, the court ordered Najib to pay US$1.3 billion to SRC after finding him liable for the losses suffered by the company.

In his judgment on that date, Judge Ahmad Fairuz, who now sits at the Court of Appeal, said the court found that Najib had abused his position, thus enabling SRC to obtain a RM4 billion loan from the Retirement Provident Fund (KWAP) under government guarantee.

Najib then filed a notice of appeal on April 8, followed by an application to stay the execution of the judgment on April 9 while waiting for the appeal to be heard and decided.

Earlier, Najib's lawyer, Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee, argued that the US$1.3 billion or about RM5.47 billion ordered to be paid to SRC was the largest amount ever imposed on an individual in this country in a civil suit.

He argued that the extraordinary amount made the case unique and could not be compared to other cases, especially after taking into account the position of SRC, which has now been wound up.

According to Muhammad Farhan, the company's financial accounts had also not been updated for a long time, and this situation raised questions about whether SRC would be able to return the money if the former Pekan MP's appeal was successful.

He argued that if the judgment was implemented immediately, Najib's appeal would likely be in vain as SRC could take other enforcement measures, including initiating bankruptcy proceedings against the former Prime Minister.

“In addition to the judgment in the SRC case, Najib also faces several other liabilities, including criminal penalties, tax liabilities and civil suits related to 1MDB, which in total could reach tens of billions of ringgit,” he argued during the proceedings conducted via Zoom.

Meanwhile, SRC International lawyer P. Gananathan argued that Najib’s application should be rejected because he failed to prove the existence of special circumstances to postpone the implementation of the judgment.

He argued that reasons such as the large amount of the judgment or the possibility that the former Prime Minister was facing financial difficulties were not sufficient to meet the requirements.

Gananathan said that cash flow problems, impaired financial position or the need to sell assets were also not unusual when someone was ordered to pay a certain amount of money.

“If the amount of a monetary judgment alone was sufficient to justify a postponement, then every judgment of a large value would automatically lead to a postponement of implementation,” he argued.

Gananathan also stated that Najib’s status as a former Prime Minister or any impact on his reputation and personal integrity were irrelevant in the application.

“Adverse effects on reputation are a normal consequence of litigation and have no direct bearing on the implementation of the judgment.

“All parties are equal before the law, and no one is more privileged before the law,” he argued.

Commenting on the status of SRC, which is now wound up, Gananathan argued that the winding up of the company was not done at the request of creditors regarding alleged insolvency.

“This is not a case where creditors applied to wind up SRC on grounds of insolvency. SRC was wound up by a shareholders’ resolution to enable the asset recovery process to be handled by insolvency and asset recovery experts,” he argued.

Gananathan argued that Najib’s concerns that the judgment money could not be returned if the appeal was successful had been answered by an undertaking from MOF Inc.

He argued that the undertaking, among other things, stated MOF Inc.’s willingness to return the money or ensure that the money was managed, subject to the outcome of the appeal.

“There is no concern that the money could not be returned. We are talking about the Government of Malaysia and MOF Inc.,” he said. – May 7, 2026