[UPDATED] So what if Nazlan worked for Maybank, asks DPP in Najib’s amendment bid

PUTRAJAYA – Judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali’s previous role in Maybank was known to “everyone from day one”, said ad hoc deputy public prosecutor Datuk V Sithambaram.

In his arguments at the Federal Court today, he defended Nazlan’s old job and questioned how this affected the judge finding former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak guilty in the SRC International corruption case.

“Everyone knew from day one that he was from Maybank, he was the general counsel, they also knew that Maybank was the strategic adviser (for 1MDB). So what?

“How does that in any way affect the finding of guilt of the appellant in this case?”

If the court decides against Najib’s application, the hearing of his final appeal will begin after.

Earlier, Najib’s lead counsel Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, in presenting his arguments, warned of the “real danger of bias”, referring to Nazlan’s prior role in Maybank when 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) was seeking a loan from the bank in 2012, the Federal Court heard today.

He added that Nazlan’s observation in his judgement in relation to 1MDB’s proposal for the setting up of SRC International must be examined in the context of Maybank’s role.

The loan in question is related to the RM6.17 billion 1MDB needed to acquire Tanjong Energy Holdings Sdn Bhd. Nazlan held the position of general counsel and company secretary of Maybank Investment Bank Bhd from 2006 to 2015.

Hisyam then argued it can be reasonably inferred that Nazlan would have knowledge about the said proposal at the time of the SRC trial and was expected to have even advised Maybank on the proposal.

Citing precedents set by cases such as Regina vs Park and Ladd v Marshall, he said there were four main conditions that needed to be fulfilled for the admissibility of new evidence.

They are that the evidence to be submitted must not be available at the trial, the evidence must be relevant and credible and there must be reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellant.

Hisyam said during the trial, Najib was not supplied with the documents engaging Maybank as 1MDB’s strategic adviser.

He added that Najib was also unaware of Nazlan’s involvement in his role in Maybank in the RM140 million loan to Putra Perdana Development Sdn Bhd and RM4.17 billion loan to 1MDB.

“As such, we have satisfied requirements (to adduce new evidence) under Section 93 of the Courts of Judicature Act.”

Hisyam also wanted to submit additional evidence from former 1MDB CEO Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi, investigating officer Rosli Hussein and three other Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission officers who recorded statements from Nazlan.

In his reply, Sithambaram argued Nazlan’s role was in the public domain and the matter was not brought up as a point of contention by the defence at the beginning of the trial.

He added that the documents received by Najib anonymously amounted to hearsay and were inadmissible as evidence as any facts alleged have not been ascertained.

“This is triple hearsay. The defence has not produced new evidence (in its application).”

The DPP dismissed the defence’s argument that Nazlan would have some involvement in the incorporation of SRC International due to Maybank’s role in strategising the proposal to 1MDB.

“1MDB and SRC are two separate legal entities. One has got nothing to do with the other,” said Sithambaram.

The court is expected to hear from Hisyam once the hearing resumes at 9.30am tomorrow.

Today’s five-member panel is led by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, and comprises Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim and the Federal Court’s Datuk Nallini Pathmanathan, Datuk Mary Lim Thiam Suan, and Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah.

In the June filing, Najib said Nazlan had failed to disclose his role in his previous job as Maybank’s company secretary and group general counsel in 2012.

Najib’s lead defence counsel at the time, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, said there was enough merit for them to seek a retrial as Nazlan could be called as an important witness in the 1MDB proceedings.

However, the prosecution had argued that Najib’s application was a desperate attempt to nullify the trial and Nazlan’s previous role had no conflict of interest, and had been in the public domain even before the trial began in 2019.

On July 28, 2020, Nazlan sentenced Najib to 12 years in jail and fined him RM210 million after he was found guilty of misappropriating RM42 million belonging to SRC International.

Last December 8, the Court of Appeal upheld Najib’s conviction.

Once the hearing for his final appeal has concluded on August 26, the apex court is expected to make a decision a few months later.

If Najib’s conviction is upheld by the Federal Court, he will immediately have to serve his sentence. He would also have exhausted all legal means to appeal in this case.

The only recourse open to the former prime minister is to apply for a royal pardon after he begins to serve his sentence. – The Vibes, August 15, 2022