theVibes.com:
Bad faith to accuse Najib’s defence team of delay tactics: Zaid Ibrahim
Lawyer says they had new evidence by MACC, Maybank on judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali
Although discharged by his client just days before the final appeal verdict was delivered, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim (pic) has been lambasting the judiciary and government for their alleged ‘double standards’ against Datuk Seri Najib Razak, whom the lawyer said had been denied due process. – AZIM RAHMAN/The Vibes pic, September 2, 2022
KUALA LUMPUR – The defence team in Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s final appeal on the first SRC International Bhd graft case was not seeking to delay the verdict, lawyer Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said, reiterating his disappointment with the appeal’s outcome that sent the former prime minister straight to jail.
Zaid, who briefly acted as one of Najib’s solicitors in the final appeal at the Federal Court, said the defence had more evidence to present concerning the status of judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, who presided over Najib’s SRC trial at the high court and meted out a 12-year sentence and a RM210 million fine.
That was the “main problem” with the case, he said during The Vibes’ “The Good, The Bad and the Ugly” podcast session on Thursday.
Denying views that Najib’s lawyers were using delay tactics, Zaid said there was no evidence to support such a motive.
“You cannot assume bad faith, this is justice we are talking about. You cannot say lawyers are all like that, how do you know?
“What evidence do you have that lawyers always do that? Is it empirical evidence you have that lawyers ask for a postponement because they are acting in bad faith?
KUALA LUMPUR – The defence team in Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s final appeal on the first SRC International Bhd graft case was not seeking to delay the verdict, lawyer Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said, reiterating his disappointment with the appeal’s outcome that sent the former prime minister straight to jail.
Zaid, who briefly acted as one of Najib’s solicitors in the final appeal at the Federal Court, said the defence had more evidence to present concerning the status of judge Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, who presided over Najib’s SRC trial at the high court and meted out a 12-year sentence and a RM210 million fine.
That was the “main problem” with the case, he said during The Vibes’ “The Good, The Bad and the Ugly” podcast session on Thursday.
Denying views that Najib’s lawyers were using delay tactics, Zaid said there was no evidence to support such a motive.
“You cannot assume bad faith, this is justice we are talking about. You cannot say lawyers are all like that, how do you know?
“What evidence do you have that lawyers always do that? Is it empirical evidence you have that lawyers ask for a postponement because they are acting in bad faith?
Datuk Zaid Ibrahim (pic) describes Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali’s past stint as the Maybank Group’s general counsel as ‘conflicted’ and ‘untenable’ as he did not recuse himself from the trial. – AZIM RAHMAN/The Vibes pic, September 2, 2022
“When you are dealing with justice you have to be fair, and fairness means you have to tell us why, in this particular case, it is not permissible (to grant adjournment).”
Zaid described Nazlan’s past stint as the Maybank Group’s general counsel as “conflicted” and “untenable” as he did not recuse himself from the trial.
Zaid said this was among the reasons why the former prime minister’s legal team sought the adjournment of the final appeal.
“In my book, never in the history of this country and I think elsewhere, would a judge so involved in the material aspects of the case consider himself fit to be the judge,” Zaid said.
“We wanted to bring that aspect first, we wanted to bring new evidence, supported by MACC’s (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) investigations, and supported by officials of Maybank who gave statements to that effect to support our case.”
Although discharged by his client just days before the final appeal verdict was delivered, Zaid has been lambasting the judiciary and government for their alleged “double standards” against Najib, whom the lawyer said had been denied due process.
Zaid said he was puzzled at how the Federal Court, at every turn, rejected the Pekan MP’s bid to adduce new evidence and postpone the trial, as defence lawyers require adequate time to prepare and argue the case.
Prior to the start of the final appeal hearing, Najib had changed lawyers, replacing Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah and his law firm Shafee & Co, with Hisyam Teh Poh Teik as lead defence lawyer and with Zaid and lawyers from Zaid Ibrahim Suflan TH Liew & Partners, effective July 25.
“When you are dealing with justice you have to be fair, and fairness means you have to tell us why, in this particular case, it is not permissible (to grant adjournment).”
Zaid described Nazlan’s past stint as the Maybank Group’s general counsel as “conflicted” and “untenable” as he did not recuse himself from the trial.
Zaid said this was among the reasons why the former prime minister’s legal team sought the adjournment of the final appeal.
“In my book, never in the history of this country and I think elsewhere, would a judge so involved in the material aspects of the case consider himself fit to be the judge,” Zaid said.
“We wanted to bring that aspect first, we wanted to bring new evidence, supported by MACC’s (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) investigations, and supported by officials of Maybank who gave statements to that effect to support our case.”
Although discharged by his client just days before the final appeal verdict was delivered, Zaid has been lambasting the judiciary and government for their alleged “double standards” against Najib, whom the lawyer said had been denied due process.
Zaid said he was puzzled at how the Federal Court, at every turn, rejected the Pekan MP’s bid to adduce new evidence and postpone the trial, as defence lawyers require adequate time to prepare and argue the case.
Prior to the start of the final appeal hearing, Najib had changed lawyers, replacing Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah and his law firm Shafee & Co, with Hisyam Teh Poh Teik as lead defence lawyer and with Zaid and lawyers from Zaid Ibrahim Suflan TH Liew & Partners, effective July 25.
Datuk Zaid Ibrahim says he believes justice is not just about the outcome, and that sole concern with the outcome harkens back to the days of lynching. – AZIM RAHMAN/The Vibes pic, September 2, 2022
However, on August 19, Hisyam informed the Federal Court that Zaid’s law firm was discharged as solicitors in the case.
Najib’s conviction and sentence was upheld by the apex court on August 23. He was sent to Kajang Prison immediately. He also has to face other 1Malaysia Development Bhd-related trials.
Recounting what transpired during the final hearing, Zaid said the defence team was not asking for Najib to be acquitted but was seeking to refer the case before another high court judge to see whether the new “evidence” was relevant.
However, he said the apex court insisted on proceeding with arguing the merits of the final appeal.
Zaid also noted that due to a potential conflict of interest, Nazlan had replaced judge Datuk Mohd Sofian Abd Razak as the latter was the brother of Umno Pahang state executive member Datuk Seri Mohd Sofi Razak.
“So obviously the issue of conflict and bias was on everybody’s mind (at the time), but everybody forgot (this) when Nazlan came in.
“Justice is not just the outcome. If the outcome is something you are concerned with, we can go back to the days when we lynched people.
“The community thinks that if the person is wrong, we lynch and hang them. What makes a community civilised is that we believe in due process, every step we bring along the way, we must bring that component of justice.”
Tune into the full episode of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly – Ep 14 with Zaid tomorrow. – The Vibes, September 2, 2022
However, on August 19, Hisyam informed the Federal Court that Zaid’s law firm was discharged as solicitors in the case.
Najib’s conviction and sentence was upheld by the apex court on August 23. He was sent to Kajang Prison immediately. He also has to face other 1Malaysia Development Bhd-related trials.
Recounting what transpired during the final hearing, Zaid said the defence team was not asking for Najib to be acquitted but was seeking to refer the case before another high court judge to see whether the new “evidence” was relevant.
However, he said the apex court insisted on proceeding with arguing the merits of the final appeal.
Zaid also noted that due to a potential conflict of interest, Nazlan had replaced judge Datuk Mohd Sofian Abd Razak as the latter was the brother of Umno Pahang state executive member Datuk Seri Mohd Sofi Razak.
“So obviously the issue of conflict and bias was on everybody’s mind (at the time), but everybody forgot (this) when Nazlan came in.
“Justice is not just the outcome. If the outcome is something you are concerned with, we can go back to the days when we lynched people.
“The community thinks that if the person is wrong, we lynch and hang them. What makes a community civilised is that we believe in due process, every step we bring along the way, we must bring that component of justice.”
Tune into the full episode of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly – Ep 14 with Zaid tomorrow. – The Vibes, September 2, 2022
I believe that everybody would have been aware that Judge Nazlan was previously Maybank's legal counsel.
ReplyDeleteIt would stretch the imagination that Najib and his lawyers would not have checked on the new sitting judge's background especially when he (Nazlan) himself was replacing a recused judge.
Therefore, with that knowledge, why then object to Nazlan sitting on the bench to hear Najib's case only during the final appeal at the Federal Court?
I am puzzled by Zaid's vehemence and sometimes (what I would describe as) reckless words since the case has closed?
Isn't there other legal ways to bring this new evidence he is talking about?
I am not a lawyer, but since the case is over, can't Zaid speak out publicly about the new evidence? Or is he legally constrained from doing so?
Rafizi seems to speak so freely about the LCS scandal and bringing out what he view as information for the public to know. And he is being called for questioning only now because Latiff made a report against him (Rafizi).
Can't Zaid do the same?
I stand corrected as I am not legally trained but asking as an ordinary person.
It's Karma arising from what happened to Altantuya.....
ReplyDeleteKarma takes time to come to fruition.
ReplyDeleteFor 12 years , Naj was safe. He walked the corridors of power, from Washington DC to Beijing to London.
4 years ago, Naj started to go downhill, now his Karma has fully ripened.