Justice Collin Lawrence Sequerah said this was because the investigations commenced in 2014, when the accused was still the prime minister, and resumed in 2018.
“With regard to the allegation that Najib was asked certain questions when his statement under Section 53(3) of the MACC Act was taken, I find that this has not caused prejudice to the accused in light of the nature of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, in particular the 49th prosecution witness,” he said in his 41-page summary of the ruling.
The 49th witness was Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigating officer Nur Aida Arifin.
Earlier, Sequerah ordered Najib, 71, to enter his defence on four charges of using his position to obtain RM2.28 billion in gratification from 1MDB funds and 21 money laundering charges involving the same funds, after finding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case at the end of its case.
Sequerah also dismissed the defence’s contention that the four graft charges and 21 money laundering charges were defective, duplicitous and ambiguous, and therefore bad law and in violation of Section 163 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
He said upon perusal and examination of all four charges, it was clear that they contained the time and place, and stated the offences for which the accused was charged.
“All the four graft charges and 21 money laundering charges therefore fulfil all the legal criteria required of a charge as provided for under Sections 152, 153 and 154 of the CPC,” he said.
Sequerah said Section 422 of the CPC provided that any irregularity in charges could be cured provided the accused was not prejudiced in any manner and no failure of justice was occasioned.
“I do not find that the accused has been misled or has suffered prejudice in relation to the charges proffered.
“In any event, Section 156 of the CPC states that any errors or omissions (which I do not find to be the case here) with respect to the charge are not to be regarded as material unless the accused was in fact misled as a result, which has not been the case here,” he said.
In his judgment, Sequerah said the prosecution had successfully established that the accused was an officer of a public body in respect of all four charges of abuse of power under Section 23(1) of the MACC Act, which involves the misuse of office or position for gratification.
The judge noted that there was no serious challenge to the accused’s positions as prime minister, finance minister and chairman of the 1MDB board of advisers, and therefore the accused was an officer of a public body at the material time.
“The evidence shows that the accused took the first action, inter alia, from the evidence of Mazidah Abdul Majid, who was the deputy head secretary (Cabinet) in the Prime Minister’s Department – which proved the accused on April 1, 2009, attended the Cabinet meeting; presented a memorandum of the finance ministry; obtained the Cabinet’s consent for the provision of a guarantee by the government to Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA) to enable TIA to obtain domestic and foreign market loans of up to RM5 billion by way of Islamic Medium-Term Notes (IMTN),” he said.
Central role in TIA takeover
Sequerah noted that the prosecution’s evidence revealed that Najib showed interest in TIA from its inception and played a central role in the government’s takeover of TIA, which was later renamed 1MDB.
He said the accused was also instrumental in leading the Cabinet to consent to the provision of a guarantee by the government to enable TIA to obtain the RM5 billion IMTN loan.
Sequerah said an examination and evaluation of the evidence revealed Najib had acted in matters where he had a vested interest.
He said the money trail report also showed that between Feb 23 and June 14, 2011, approximately US$20 million (RM60,629,839.43) of the proceeds credited into the accused’s AmIslamic Bank account from an account at Riyadh Bank, Saudi Arabia, were found to be traceable to the issuance of the IMTN bond in 2009 and the syndicated term loan in 2010.
Regarding the second charge concerning the acquisition of independent power producers (IPPs) Tanjong Energy Holdings Sdn Bhd and Mastika Lagenda Sdn Bhd, the judge said the prosecution adduced evidence to show that the accused took certain actions leading 1MDB to enter into these transactions.
He further said that the money trail traced by Bank Negara Malaysia analyst Adam Ariff Roslan showed that the funds totalling RM 90,899,927.28, which were deposited into the accused’s account, originated from the bond issuance intended for the acquisitions of Tanjong Energy’s IPP and Mastika Lagenda’s IPP.