Judge Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid fixed the date after hearing arguments from Laidlaw’s lawyer Harvinderjit Singh as well as the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), Malaysian Bar and the Kuala Lumpur Bar committee.
Najib has engaged Laidlaw, a Queen’s Counsel (QC) specialising in business and financial crime laws, to argue his SRC International appeal before the Federal Court.
In his petition, Laidlaw said the SRC International case involved “serious, complex and novel issues related to several branches of criminal and civil laws”.
“For the purpose of the appeal, the applicant (Laidlaw) possesses special qualifications, experience and expertise which is not available among the lawyers here”.
Najib has been convicted on seven charges of power abuse, criminal breach of trust and money laundering in relation to RM42 million belonging to SRC International that were deposited into his bank accounts.
The court sentenced him to 12 years’ jail and a RM210 million fine. He is out on bail pending his Federal Court hearing, scheduled over 10 days from Aug 15 to 26.
AGC, Malaysian Bar raise objections
Ad-hoc prosecutor V Sithambaram, who is leading the government’s team in the SRC International case, told the court that local lawyers were competent enough to argue the appeal.
“He (Laidlaw) is a brilliant man, but we don’t need him here to argue. If we have to deal with an issue that arises in any of our cases, we can do research on foreign case laws and cite them in our submissions.
“Does it mean every time we are confronted with a ‘novel’ issue in our cases, we have to pause it and apply for a QC to come in?” he asked.
Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan, appearing for the AG, told the court that no evidence was presented in court to suggest that Najib would be prejudiced if he was deprived of a foreign lawyer’s services.
“There is no shortage of criminal lawyers in the Bar. They have the confidence to undertake all criminal cases without having to rely on a foreign lawyer,” he said.
Lawyer Bastian Pius Vendargon, representing the Malaysian Bar, said Laidlaw was not familiar with Malaysian laws.
He added, “the applicant (Laidlaw) did not give evidence of him having experience in the legal issues pertaining to the SRC charges”.
Vendargon cited the case of another QC, Cherie Blair, who wanted to appear before the Federal Court for a commercial dispute in 2006. However, Blair’s bid for ad-hoc admission was turned down.
He added that the Federal Court’s decision on Blair stood until today.
KL Bar lawyer Gurdial Singh Nijar said Laidlaw’s bid to appear in the local courts seemed to suggest that “we must rely on an outsider” like a crutch.
“It seems that without this ‘crutch’, we are inadequate.
“We urge the court to take into account the very strong objection from the Bar, and reject this delay to the entire (SRC International appeal) process,” he added.
However, Harvinderjit told the court that the SRC International prosecution team should not be appearing in court to oppose Laidlaw’s admission.
He said the prosecution was not spelt out as an interested party under the Legal Profession Act (LPA), to object or agree in an ad-hoc admission case.
“We say that he (Laidlaw) has passed the threshold under Section 18 of the LPA to be admitted,” he said.
The lawyer went on to argue about the prosecution’s conduct in the SRC International trial, claiming that information was suppressed from the defence.
This irked Sithambaram, who stood up to say: “Learned counsel (Harvinderjit) is arguing on the merits of the appeal.”
Kamal told Harvinderjit that today’s proceeding was about Laidlaw – on whether the UK lawyer could be allowed to appear for Najib.
“This is not about the retrial of SRC. What is before me is whether he is qualified,” the judge added.