That question will be answered tomorrow, following 12 days of oral submissions by both the prosecution and defence which began on Aug 19 and concluded on Oct 3.
The prosecution had closed its case on May 30, after 235 hearing days going back to Aug 29, 2019, with 50 witnesses testifying.
Lawyer A Srimurugan said the trial judge must be satisfied on a maximum evaluation of evidence that the prosecution has proven all ingredients of the four abuse of power charges before the former prime minister is called upon to rebut them.
“Najib will be acquitted and discharged if the prosecution’s case does not cross the threshold,” he told FMT.
Srimurugan said the 21 money laundering charges would also fall if the court finds the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case on the power abuse charges.
Separately, lawyer Baljit Singh Sidhu said Najib’s apology to Malaysians over the 1MDB fiasco last week was irrelevant to the trial.
“He only made a political statement. The trial judge’s decision will be based purely on law and evidence,” he said.
Najib is charged with 25 counts of money laundering and abuse of power over alleged 1MDB funds amounting to RM2.28 billion deposited in his AmBank accounts between February 2011 and December 2014.
In his opening statement, then lead prosecutor, the late Gopal Sri Ram, told the court that Najib used his position as prime minister, finance minister and chairman of 1MDB’s board of advisers “to exert influence over the board of 1MDB to carry out certain abnormal transactions with undue haste”.
“An elaborate charade was employed. It was acted out in four phases in which several characters played a part. His objective was to enrich himself,” Sri Ram had said.
He said fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho, better known as Jho Low, was an important character in the charade.
Former 1MDB chairman Bakke Salleh, Najib’s ex-special officer Amhari Efendi Nazaruddin, then finance minister II Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah and former Bank Negara Governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz were all called to testify in the case.
Bakke told the court that he resigned in October 2009 in protest after 1MDB’s management disobeyed instructions issued by the company’s directors over the transfer of US$700 million to an unknown firm earlier the same year.
Amhari testified that he undertook a “secret mission” to China in June 2016 on Najib’s instructions, in a bid to get Chinese investors to bail out 1MDB and its subsidiary, SRC International Sdn Bhd.
Husni, then finance minister II, said Najib had decision-making power in 1MDB. He said the former prime minister had told him not to “interfere anymore in 1MDB” sometime in 2010, after he queried a US$700 million payment to Good Star Limited, a firm which had no business links to 1MDB.
For her part, Zeti denied being told that Najib would be receiving “donations” in his bank account. She had also said that Najib had asked her to issue a media statement clearing him of wrongdoing in relation to activities in his bank accounts, which she refused to do.
However, Najib’s lead counsel Shafee Abdullah argued that key prosecution witnesses like Amhari and Zeti should not be believed as their evidence was not corroborated.
Najib’s defence is that all major decisions were made by the board and its management jointly with Low without his knowledge.
Shafee said Najib genuinely believed that all money deposited into his account was donated by an Arab royal family.
The lawyer said the prosecution had not been able to establish a prima facie case against Najib as it relied heavily on hearsay evidence from key witnesses like Amhari.
He said Amhari implicated the accused largely on what Najib’s principal private secretary, Azlin Alias, and Low had told him.
Azlin was killed in a helicopter crash in 2015, while Low is still at large and the subject of an Interpol red notice.
Shafee said the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission should have located Low and should have tried him together with Najib, or produced him as a prosecution witness.