Defence lawyers claim Najib’s charges vague, defective and should be quashed.
Najib Razak’s lawyers have applied to strike out his seven charges relating to SRC International, arguing they are defective as they lack clarity and specificity, which would leave the former prime minister defenceless.
Defence counsel Yusof Zainal Abiden told the Kuala Lumpur High Court today that it was insufficient for prosecutors to merely state in the charge the technical name “criminal breach of trust”.
“It does not help or enable an accused to prepare his defence effectively as it lacks specificity and therefore, it does not give the accused sufficient notice of the case that he has to meet,” he said.
Yusof said Najib is also charged as an agent, as the prime minister, finance minister and advisor emeritus of SRC International.
“In other words, the applicant was charged in three different capacities which purportedly gave rise to the allegation that he was an agent,” he told the hearing presided by Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, who is also hearing the SRC International trial.
Najib, dressed in a dark grey suit, sat in the dock and appeared calm.
The arguments are part of the former prime minister’s notice of motion, seeking for an order that all seven charges against him be stayed or quashed unless amended. Najib is also applying that all proceedings in relation to the charges are stayed or adjourned until the final disposal of this motion.
Najib was charged with one offence under Section 23 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act, three charges of money laundering under Section 4(1)(b) of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act (AMLA) and three charges criminal breach of trust (CBT) charges under Section 409 of the Penal Code.
Defence counsel Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin said the money laundering charges were vague and did not disclose the predicate offence and that they merely specified that the monies were allegedly “proceeds of unlawful activity.”
“The prosecution must indicate what is the predicate offence,” Kamarul told the court.
“In this case, there are two predicate offences, namely the alleged criminal breach of trust and Section 23 of the MACC Act. It is therefore imperative for the prosecution to indicate in the charges for AMLA offences the exact predicate offence.”
Kamarul further argued that Najib cannot be charged with both predicate and AMLA offences, adding it was “worse than double jeopardy”.
“As long as one is found guilty of CBT or theft or robbery, he would be…with absolutely no defence to AMLA. Can that be the intent of Parliament? Surely, not. That is not how it works in England.”
Deputy public prosecutor V Sithambaram argued that Najib’s application to quash the seven charges unless amended “tantamount to an abuse of the court process.”
“They are citing from case laws, but not from this case,” Sithambaram told the court.
“As it stands, it is quite clear the defence has no difficulty to conduct the case as the charges stand.”
He said the motion to amend the charges as they are predicated on one another, or are defective, is unfounded.
“Section 23 cannot charge. 409 also cannot charge. In fact, nothing should be charged.”
He submitted that Najib’s application is “devoid of any merit” and asked the court to dismiss it.
Nazlan said he will deliver his judgment on Monday. – TMI