Najib’s lawyer insists not making any submission

585
- Advertisement - [resads_adspot id="2"]

No submission despite having three days to prepare.

The prosecution has ended its submissions urging the Federal Court to uphold the conviction against Datuk Seri Najib Razak but the former prime minister’s lead counsel Hisyam Teh Poh Teik has insisted that he would not be submitting anything in defence of his client.

Hisyam maintained his position despite being asked twice by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat about the defence’s unusual stance.

“Don’t tell me you are not in any way prepared to submit even on one point out of the 94 points.

“Not even orally? You have tomorrow, Sunday and Monday to prepare…,” she asked him after Hisyam informed the judges that he did not have anything to submit on when court resumes on Tuesday.

Tengku Maimun: Not even one?

Hisyam: No, I will not be making any submission.

Tengku Maimun: You can always submit orally…it is your liberty.

Hisyam: No.

Tengku Maimun: Ok we will decide on the matter on Tuesday.

Earlier, Hisyam had sought the court’s permission if the ongoing appeal hearing could resume on Thursday (August 25) instead as he has other matters to attend to without specifying in detail.

In response, Tengku Maimun reiterated the court’s stand in denying any form of adjournment before ordering for court proceedings to resume on Tuesday morning.

It is understood that Hisyam is the lead defence lawyer for Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s criminal breach of trust of the charity Yayasan Akalbudi’s funds trial, which will resume on Tuesday.

Yesterday, Hisyam stunned the Federal Court by applying for leave to recuse himself and his team from the case.

The sudden move had left Najib without counsel in his final appeal, with Hisyam citing inadequate time to prepare a suitable defence.

“My apology is sincere and from the bottom of my heart. I am unable to act in this case.”

Shafwan Zaidon

“It was my error in judgement for taking the case.”

“I was hopeful that the court would grant discretion in my favour, due to the scope and depth of the appeal.”