Injustice To Najib, Release Najib Now!

On Hari Raya day, ie 22 April 2023, it would have been exactly eight months since the former Premier Najib Razak was first sentenced to 12 years in prison and slapped with a disproportionate fine of RM210 million meted out by the High Court.

On 31 March 2023, the former prime minister failed to have his conviction and sentence in the RM42mil SRC International Sdn Bhd case reversed following the Federal Court’s dismissal of his application for leave for a review when a 4-1 majority decision, read by Justice Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, found no bias or breach of natural justice had occurred in the hearing of Najib’s final appeal before a different panel in August last year.

Interestingly, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Abdul Rahman Sebli, who chaired the five-judge panel, was the lone dissenting voice. But his words were as loud, in fact louder than the majority judgement of the four judges. One of his stand was that the Federal Court Ruling had caused injustice to the applicant.

Injustice To Najib

“In any event, the question to ask is not whether the court made the right decision in refusing to allow an adjournment. The right question to ask is whether the decision had caused injustice to the applicant. There is a difference between making a right decision and a decision that causes injustice to any party. The difference is like doing the right thing and doing it right.”

Ironically, Justice Abdul Rahman was the Chief Justice and most senior judge of the five-member panel. But despite his seniority and position and seemed the most logical of all of them, his words did not matter. He even pointed out, shockingly twice, that the Chief Justice (CJ) Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, and the Federal Court Appeal panel had BROKEN THE LAW when they did not allow Najib’s lawyer to discharge himself.

Despite Justice Rahman Sebli being a lone dissenting voice that does not make his opinion untrue … the truth remains that Najib was unrepresented during the Federal Court Appeal as his counsel Hisham Teh had discharged himself and refused to make any submission on behalf of Najib. That, by itself, adversely affected Najib’s RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.

Lately, both mainstream and social media have been abuzz with the findings about Appellate Judge Nazlan Mohd Ghazali who not only had a conflict of interest issue when he was the High Court judge who declared Najib guilty, there was a report against him for another conflict of interest case. Interestingly, when he was presiding during the case, he never once mentioned that he had a personal interest in the case and should have recused himself.

Protection For Nazlan

CJ Maimun, meanwhile, has been seen to be protecting Justice Nazlan, giving all kinds of flimsy excuses, putting the blame on the Malaysian Anti Corruption Coucil (MACC) for not following protocols. Lately, it is alleged that Judge Nazlan has been embroiled in another conflict of interest case.

A police report against CJ Maimun was also filed last week.

An Umno leader, Puad Zakarshi has urged the CJ and attorney-general (AG) to set the record straight following a minister’s confirmation that Justice Nazlan Ghazali had been found to have committed wrongdoing when presiding over Najib’s SRC International case.

In an interview with Free Malaysia Today, he asked: “Do the CJ and AG want to trivialise the role of investigative bodies like MACC?”

Violation of Judges’ Code of Ethics

Law and institutional reform minister Azalina Othman Said had said the MACC probe on Nazlan concluded that he had violated the Judges’ Code of Ethics (JEC) and had a conflict of interest when presiding over the case.

In a letter dated 20 March to Najib’s solicitors, Shafee & Co, Azalina confirmed that Nazlan, who presided over his SRC trial in the High Court, had breached the code and had a conflict of interest.

MACC had probed Nazlan and sent the results of their investigations to Maimun on 20 February 2023.

Maimun then delivered her judgement on 24 February saying that MACC had failed to follow protocols when probing Nazlan.

The problem is that the protocols never existed before Maimun said it on 24 February.

So, how can MACC had breached non-existent protocols when they had submitted their report that Nazlan had breached clause 8(1) of the Judges Code of Ethics under the Federal Constitution four days earlier on 20 February?

Are judges so powerful until they can enact new “laws” and then enforce them retrospectively?

In fact, Maimun herself had breached clause 7(5) and 8(3) of the Judges Code of Ethics under the Federal Constitution which states that:

Clause 7(5) reads:
“A judge shall refrain from giving any public comment about a pending or impending proceedings which may be heard before a judge’s court in a manner which may suggest to a reasonable person the judge’s probable decision an any particular case”.

Clause 8(3) reads:
“A judge shall refrain from participating in any public discussions which in the mind of a reasonable person, may undermine confidence in the judge’s impartiality with respect to any issue pending before the court”.

Maimun had defended Nazlan several times in public since April 2022 before she delivered her judgement regarding Nazlan in February 2023.

Political Analyst, Lim Sian See wrote in his Facebook post: Any reasonable person or even a fool would long had suspected Maimun’s impartiality and predicted her decision would favour Nazlan.

“So, who would like to make a police report or write to Maimun that she had breached the Judges Code of Ethics under the Federal Constitution?” Lim asked.

Puppets in the Judiciary

It is obvious now that the Judiciary in Malaysia sucks maximum.

In any other country that does not have a former Prime Minister like Mahathir who is said to be pulling the strings of his ‘puppets’ in the Judiciary, the SRC International and 1MDB related cases would not even see the light of day in court, let alone be dragged on for almost five years!

There are reports indicating that the Majlis Raja-Raja (Conference of Malay Rulers) would be convening on 28 April to discuss about a possible Pardon for Najib. If he is pardoned and can be released within a couple of days after that, it still means that Najib will not be spending the first day of Aidilfitri (expected to be on 22 April) with his family and friends.

By all humane rights and looking at the merits of the case, Najib should not have had to spend a single minute in jail, let alone eight months!

mediahit