Eyeing Zaid Ibrahim's explaination

 [8/19, 17:38] +60 12-390 3888: PRESS STATEMENT

BY DATUK ZAID IBRAHIM

I wish to make this press statement as there have been numerous queries from the media to me as to why my law firm, Zaid Ibrahim Suflan TH Liew & Partners (ZIST) were discharged by Dato’ Sri Najib Razak as solicitors on record for his ongoing appeals in the SRC International matter before the Federal Court.

This morning, lead counsel, Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, informed the Federal Court that my law firm has been discharged.  

I confirm that this decision was made by Dato’ Sri Najib with my full support and agreement.

As I understand it, Dato’ Sri Najib’s decision was prompted by his belief that his lawyers cannot serve any useful purpose as lawyers for him anymore in the ongoing hearing relating to the appeals in the Federal Court.

Dato’ Sri Najib believes that the prevailing assumption of the judges is that the reorganisation of his legal team towards the end of last month was part of a tactical ploy and a ruse to stifle and stall proceedings so as to avoid or delay the final judgment and sentence to be passed on him or for political reasons.

As a politician myself, I can confirm that this unfortunate assumption is furthest from the truth.

As a lawyer, and who was asked to assist Dato’ Sri Najib in this matter, I have seen materials and the papers to state categorically that the fresh evidence that he was seeking to admit would have had a nuclear effect on the issue of Justice Nazlan Ghazali’s conflict of interest and apparent bias in being the Trial Judge and passing Judgment and sentence on Dato’ Sri Najib.

I regret that despite the best efforts of lead counsel, Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, and the lawyers in my team both from Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, we have not been able to dispel this sad misconception.

The fact that Dato’ Sri Najib may have just been seeking justice appears to have been uncharitably disregarded.

The decision for me and my Firm to accept this Brief rested primarily on our view that Dato’ Sri Najib’s case called for a new approach and fresh perspectives. It also required him to abandon unnecessarily vitriolic matters and personal attacks on Justice Nazlan who had presided over the trial.

Instead, we were intent on focusing strictly on the legal and factual issues surrounding the case, concentrating especially on the issues of bias and conflict of interests.

We believe from an objective analysis of the facts of the case that the evidence was overwhelmingly in Dato’ Sri Najib’s favour.

In order to ensure that the application to adduce fresh evidence was properly and strongly put forward before the Court, I consulted my friend and colleague in Singapore, Niru Pillai of Niru & Co LLC. I know that Niru can bring added value and would be a very good architect to bring completely different perspectives to any difficult cases. Niru put together a team in his Firm to assist ZIST. He also then reached out to take independent advice from leading counsel in criminal law and in the current situation facing the application to adduce the fresh evidence and the appeals.

Given Niru’s vast network of professional relationships in India with leading lights and doyens in the Indian legal profession, Niru sought out 2 very established leading Senior Advocates, Sidharth Luthra and Kavin Gulati.

Niru officially briefed them and the Indian Legal Team was put together with Rony John and Avi Tandon assisting.

In my view, this was a great team and I can confirm that Dato’ Sri Najib was extremely pleased with its work. 

We believed that the application was well founded and was very compelling. Unfortunately, the Court in its wisdom did not think so. The application was not allowed.

Even Dato’ Sri Najib’s request for a short adjournment to enable our legal team to properly get up the case, and for counsel to adequately prepare his submissions and arguments for what is clearly an extremely complex and high-profile case, was denied outright.

In the short four weeks since we were engaged, we have painstakingly perused the relevant appeal records, reviewed substantial affidavits, carried out extensive research on the law, prepared the final response affidavits and filed extensive written submissions. This was a monumental and herculean task on its own, given the short period within which we had to be ready because the Court refused to even adjourn the applications, let alone the appeals.

We had even prepared a fresh motion to seek a Review of the Federal Court’s decision to deny Dato’ Sri Najib’s application to adduce fresh evidence. This has not been filed.

We are more than satisfied that we have done our utmost best for Dato’ Sri Najib.  

It is beyond belief that the highest Court in the land would deny Dato’ Sri Najib the right to adduce relevant material and necessary evidence to ensure that the truth is established and justice is done. The application was to show how manifestly egregious was the conflict of interest on the part of Justice Nazlan. In my view, the Judge was clearly biased. He had no business being the Trial Judge in the SRC matter. It is clear to us that the setback which Dato’ Sri Najib has suffered is a grave injustice arising from a manifest error of law and certainly derailed all efforts to pursue his constitutional rights that he is entitled to.

We recognize and accept that Dato’ Sri Najib is at a critical point in the legal timeline of his SRC case, and with his personal liberty at stake, we accept graciously his decision to discharge us.  

We understand perfectly well that he must do what is best for himself.

I stand by my earlier statement that my Firm will never abandon Dato’ Sri Najib as our client, or any other client. That is neither our culture nor tradition. Nonetheless, the exigencies of the current exceptional circumstances and situation impel us to be mindful of the needs of the client. The client’s interest is paramount. I wish Dato’ Sri Najib the very best. I will always be there to help him in any situation, as a lawyer and a friend.

I have learnt many things over the last few weeks.  For instance, I did not know that lawyers in criminal cases must get permission from the courts to discharge themselves, which I believe is a startling new legal proposition.  Neither did I appreciate that inflexibility and rigidity were essential ingredients of justice.  I always thought the foremost ingredients of justice were fairness, reasonableness and compassion and that these took precedence over administrative efficiency.

On a personal note, I learnt who my real friends are.  Retired judge Mahadev Shanker ranks very highly among them, and I thank him for his kind words to me in recent times.

Not, though, are those who besmirched my character because my work has sometimes involved in taking up unpopular causes.  

Nonetheless, I will always remain to be determined not to be shaken off my core beliefs. I will always fight for justice, whether for the ordinary man or for the King. In doing so, I will also want to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done.

No one can stop me from pursuing what I believe truly in my heart and mind. The law has been my passion and helping others has been my calling.

I intend to keep calm and carry on.

Datuk Zaid Ibrahim

19 August 2022

Eyeing Azrul Abu Hasan's view

Saya lihat ramai yang bergembira apabila DS Najib Razak makin hampir dipenjarakan oleh Mahkamah Malaysia.Mereka lupa tentang jasa-jasa DSN sebagai Perdana Menteri Malaysia yang ke-6. Mereka hanya ingat dan percaya yang beliau mencuri duit rakyat berjumlah berbillion ringgit dan ini dikuatkan lagi dengan imej-imej lavish yang ditunjukkan oleh isteri beliau. 

Mereka begitu bukan hanya kerana lumrah manusia itu yang alpa dan sukakan fitnah. Jika manusia itu tidak alpa dan sukakan fitnah, Allah SWT tidak akan mengingatkan manusia tentang hakikat diri mereka ini di dalam Al-Quran. 

Saya secara peribadi tidak mengenali DSN. Kami tidak pernah bersua dan bersembang dari hati ke hati berdua. Jadi, bukan mudah untuk saya hakimi diri beliau. Namun, saya tidak rasa DSN seorang yang ikut cara menyamun duit rakyat supaya dapat hidup senang lenang sebab beliau berasal daripada keluarga yang sudah lama kaya-raya yang memang mudah untuk dapatkan kemewahan dan wang ringgit. Jadi, tiada keperluan untuk beliau merompak duit rakyat lagi. 

Lain pula kebiasaannya bagi mereka yang asalnya hidup susah, anak seorang cikgu berketurunan Kerala contohnya. Duit dan kemewahan adalah sesuatu yang mereka dambakan dan tidak sesekali mereka mahu kembali ke zaman susah itu. Orang seperti ini jika kita mahu hukum mereka, rampas lah harta benda mereka. Barulah mereka tidak dapat tidur lena. Apabila rampasan harta dibuat oleh polis di rumah DSN, beliau tenang-tenang sahaja. 

Saya percaya yang 1MDB ini ditubuhkan salah satu sebabnya adalah mahu mengelakkan kebergantungan terhadap duit billionaire kapitalis yang mahu mengawal politik Malaysia secara hidden hands. Selain itu, 1MDB juga tertubuh untuk mengambil alih powerplants IPP yang dikuasai kroni Mahathir yang menyangkakan diri mereka mafia yang mengawal Malaysia. Sebab itu DSN betul-betul dibenci oleh tycoon-tycoon yang kononnya bekerja kuat untuk kaya padahal hanyalah menjilat anak Kerala untuk kekal berkuasa. 

Jadi, sebenarnya rakyat boleh pilih. Dalam politik lama anjuran Mahathir memang ada keperluan untuk ada dana berbillion ringgit supaya ahli-ahli parlimen boleh dibeli. Suntikan wang ke dalam akaun DSN yang kemudiannya dikembalikan adalah untuk memastikan pasca PRU13 tiada ahli parlimen yang lompat parti sehingga menjatuhkan kerajaan BN. Selepas dipastikan lompatan tidak berlaku, dana itu dipulangkan walaupun beberapa juta telah dibelanjakan. Soalan saya, adalah dana ini milik rakyat Malaysia? Di manakah yang dikatakan DSN rompak duit rakyat berbillion ringgit jika initial capital syarikat 1MDB hanya RM1 juta?

*Saya sendiri tidak setuju jika wang ringgit itu adalah ukuran untuk memenangi pilihanraya atau pemilihan.* Jika yang paling kaya lah yang layak menjadi pemimpin, Perdana Menteri atau Presiden parti, maka Robert Kuok boleh lah jadi YDPA, Vincent Tan boleh jadi Presiden MCA, Ananda Krishnan boleh jadi Presiden MIC dan Syed Mokhtar boleh jadi Presiden UMNO. Mark Zuckerberg atau Bill Gates atau Elon Musk pula boleh jadi President of America. Sebab itu saya tidak setuju Zafrul boleh jadi Pengerusi BN Selangor fast track hanya kerana beliau janjikan gula kepada BN Selangor padahal beliau adalah ahli bahagian Lembah Pantai sebelum ini. 

Jadi, percubaan DSN untuk membunuh kebergantungan terhadap kroni-kroni dan tycoon adalah sesuatu yang harus dipuji. Orang berniaga boleh menjalankan perniagaan tanpa perlu membayar rental fees kepada politicians secara paksa rela. Lihat sahaja apa yang berlaku dengan UKSB dan ini hanyalah satu syarikat yang dipaksa-rela bayar yuran bulanan secara tunai kepada ahli-ahli politik. Nama-nama lain yang disebut dalam perbicaraan itu bukanlah sesuatu yang mengejutkan kerana itulah amalan yang dianjurkan Tun Mahathir di mana nama beliau sendiri disebut pengarah syarikat UKSB sebagai ahli-ahli politik yang terima duit UKSB. 

Ketika zaman DSN juga rakyat miskin terus dibantu dan BKM yang anda dapat hari ini pun adalah asalnya BR1M yang beliau perkenalkan. Projek-projek infrastruktur seperti MRT, LRT, ECRL, HSR juga mewujudkan peluang pekerjaan untuk anak-anak Malaysia yang berkebolehan dan tidak ada seorang engineer membawa Grab di zaman beliau. Kepakaran mereka diperlukan dan digunakan seadanya. Mungkin akibat kesenangan ini sikap rakyat juga ada yang lupa diri dan tidak mahu dilihat sebagai warga Malaysia yang mendapat bantuan kerajaan, kononnya mereka berjaya atas usaha sendiri. Wahai rakyat, jadilah manusia yang mengenang budi. Inilah yang diajarkan di sekolah kan? Usah menjadi kacang yang melupakan kulit. 

DSN juga merupakan Perdana Menteri yang memperkenalkan pusat-pusat UTC untuk kemudahan awam, Klinik 1 Malaysia yang bayar token RM1 tak perlu berbelanja ratusan ringgit di klinik-klinik swasta yang berteraskan keuntungan, Kedai Rakyat 1 Malaysia yang mengawal harga barang tidak tinggi melambung seperti baru-baru ini, pelupusan konsesi tol dan pembinaan lebuhraya tanpa tol, diskaun sehingga 20% untuk bayaran balik PTPN, elaun-elaun nelayan dan pesawah dan banyak lagi. 

Yang membingungkan adalah kerana fitnah yang tidak dibendung dan perang persepsi yang gagal, segala jasa beliau telah dilupakan. Malah, rakyat boleh terpengaruh dengan permainan politik dendam padahal perkara-perkara yang melibatkan periuk nasi mereka sepatutnya lebih utama. 

Adakah sebenarnya mereka ini tidak layak untuk mendapat seorang pemimpin yang sayangi mereka? Adakah sebenarnya mereka tidak suka orang yang fikir tentang periuk nasi mereka memimpin mereka? Tidak logik. Sangat tidak logik. 

Kadangkala saya terfikir juga mungkin mereka layak untuk merasa kesusahan kerana nampaknya dalam 22 bulan zaman gelap zaman Pakatan, mereka masih tidak serik. 

Azrul Abu Hassan

Eyeing Malaysian Justice by Romen Bose

 https://www.facebook.com/111513788055529/posts/pfbid0bYZmZtmP7uPG72xj1YX9CHDfnkJA1QpUNzR9egwnXSY9SGzM81L2Qrw62ZNARGPil/?sfnsn=mo

Is this really Justice?

I’ve had it.

I have been following the ongoing saga of Datuk Seri Najib’s SRC International trial and how it has been rushed over the last four years (fyi, Anwar’s Sodomy II trial took six and a half years) but I have not made any comments because of my belief in the independence and integrity of the Malaysian judiciary and in the honourable men and women who interpret and deliver judgements based on the laws of the land.

So, I was silent when the Court of Appeal dismissed new evidence allegedly showing that the husband of former Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) Governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz, was allegedly in cahoots with Jho Low in the 1MDB scandal, a relationship the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) effectively confirmed in November 2021 when it said that as part of its recovery of 1MDB assets, Singaporean authorities had repatriated US$15.4 million to the Malaysian Government that had been seized from a company owned by Zeti’s husband. 

Given Singapore’s robust banking, investigative and legal systems, I don’t think they would have seized and repatriated funds if they did not have proof that it was related to funds siphoned from 1MDB. 

Mind you, Zeti’s reassurances was why Najib did not seem panicked when I spoke to him a day after the Wall Street Journal exposed the 1MDB scandal in 2015. As he told me then, he had been assured by Zeti that it was fine to open bank accounts in his own name and to have the US$643.41 million transferred in. Yet, despite giving Najib these assurances in 2012, Zeti then in 2018 publicly denied knowing anything about it. 

She said: "In fact, on 3 July 2015, I was called to the Prime Minister`s office. He made a request for me to issue a statement that he had done nothing wrong in his account. I informed him that I cannot issue such a statement because I did not have knowledge of transactions that had occurred in his account."

Funnily enough, I believe the MACC had investigated Zeti in 2018/2019 and had even submitted a report to the AGC (i.e. the guys who were already prosecuting Najib) showing that not only was Zeti fully aware of the monies flowing into Najib’s account but that her husband was allegedly hiding his and her children’s ill-gotten gains in Singapore. 

From this, I believe Zeti had lied about the various 1MDB-linked funds transfers. Whether it was from 1MDB, KWAP or SRC is academic. If she lied about this, then one has to call into question BNM’s involvement and awareness of the various other fund transfers.

The biggest question that I thought the judges would be asking was, “Why did Zeti not make Najib aware of any ‘suspicious’ transactions?” I would think US$643.41 million would qualify as a suspicious transaction. Could it be because she was fully aware of these transactions but kept quiet because she knew her husband was being paid handsomely by Jho Low? Or was it because, when the scandal broke, she realised the only way to save herself was to deny any knowledge of the transactions?

I would have thought that would have been enough doubt for the judges to see that Najib would have very likely been unaware of any impropriety in regard to the funds coming into his account (whether from SRC or not) as he relied on the promises of the then central bank governor (and other trusted advisors who we now know were also on Jho Low’s payroll) whose duty was to also warn him if anything improper had occurred, and who has now been shown to have lied about her knowledge and actions regarding the siphoned 1MDB-related funds.

I was also silent when the Federal Court said the Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing this new evidence. The Chief Justice laid down circumstances where further evidence could be adduced, namely that the evidence must not have been made available during the trial proper, that it is relevant and credible, and that it would have raised reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury or trial judge in arriving at the decision of a case.

Ok, I am not a lawyer, but isn’t an MACC report that effectively proves that the head of Malaysia’s financial regulator at the time of all these transactions (including that of the SRC funds) had lied about her involvement and knowledge of the transactions (and who knows what else?), constitute as relevant and credible? And would this not have raised a reasonable doubt in the mind of anyone as to whether there was a greater conspiracy linking the 1MDB and SRC charges against Najib?

And shouldn’t the judges also have asked themselves why the prosecution (whom I believe were made aware of the MACC report back in 2018/2019) did not the make the report public, but rather chose to quietly drop Zeti as a prosecution witness without giving any explanation?  

I was also silent when the Bar Council held a protest to condemn the MACC’s investigation into trial Judge Mohamad Nazlan Mohamad Ghazali, following allegations of an unexplained sum of 1 million ringgit in his bank account and the fact that Nazlan had failed to disclose his role, involvement, or knowledge in the setting up of SRC International although he had served as the general counsel and company secretary for the Maybank Group in 2006.

In a summary of his High Court judgement, Nazlan allegedly stated: “…the approval for the establishment of SRC by the accused (Najib) provided the true starting point for the involvement of the accused in the company.”

Now, anonymous whistle-blowers have sent Najib a cache of minutes of Maybank meetings and emails (if proven authentic) showing that Nazlan, not only served as the general counsel for Maybank but also allegedly attended meetings where the bank recommended the setting up of SRC in the first place. As such, Nazlan was privy to matters which went to the heart of Najib’s defence in the SRC trial. 

More interestingly, some of these documents also indicate the MACC, during its investigations of Nazlan earlier this year, had asked the judge about his involvement in the various Maybank meetings. 

In his affidavit last week to adduce the new evidence, Najib said that he has been “made to understand that when asked by the MACC officer of his knowledge/involvement …, Justice Nazlan initially denied having any knowledge …, but only after being confronted with email threads and documents by the MACC officers (did Nazlan admit) that he was indeed involved.”

So, now, not only is there strong evidence that the then governor of the central bank had lied about her involvement in the 1MDB linked funds transferred into Najib’s accounts, but that the High Court judge who had convicted Najib on seven charges of abuse of power and misappropriation of RM42 million funds belonging to SRC, had himself also allegedly been caught lying to investigators about his involvement in the setting up of SRC and deliberations on a RM4.17 billion loan to 1MDB.

In 2018, the Bar Council had demanded that the initial SRC trial judge Mohd Sofian Abd Razak recuse himself as he was the younger brother of Pahang state executive councillor and Benta Umno state assemblyperson Mohd Soffi Abdul Razak. Bar President George Varughese said then: “The rule of law demands that justice must not only be done but it must manifestly be seen to be done.”

However, when it was shown that, the current SRC trial judge was intimately involved in the setting up of SRC and appears to have lied to investigators, the Bar Council remains silent.

It is convenient to say that one was not aware of the situation at the time of the trial but now that you are aware of it, what action will you take? 

Shouldn’t you be demanding for a mistrial because the Bar Council believes that, “justice must not only be done but it must manifestly be seen to be done” in this instance as well? Or is there a double standard going on here? 

But it was the Federal Court’s decision last Friday not to allow Najib’s newly constituted legal team more time to go through the evidence and prepare for his case, despite just being handed all this new evidence to sift through and prepare, that really takes the cake.

Here you have potential evidence that the country’s top financial regulator lied about her knowledge, role and involvement in the 1MDB related funds that went into Najib’s account and you also have potential evidence that the trial judge who convicted Najib, was caught lying to investigators about his involvement in the very company that Najib is accused of stealing from. 

And none of these details were provided to Najib (even though I believe the prosecution would have likely seen the MACC report on Zeti) and it was only because of anonymous whistle-blowers who wanted to see justice prevail, that these documents have only now come to light. So far, no one has questioned or even impeached the authenticity or credibility of any of these documents.

And we refuse to give a few weeks more to Najib to prepare for proper submissions before you? 

I may not be a lawyer, but even I understand the concept of natural justice. this is not it.

 #najibrazak #NRC11 #finalreckoning #najibrazak #FREENAJIB #UMNO #UMNOSebuahPerjuangan #UmnoDuluKiniSelamanya #barisannasional #MCA #UMNOOnline #malaysiagazette