Najib’s bid to review Federal Court ruling has no merit, says DPP
Deputy public prosecutor Ashrof Adrin Kamarul said Najib Razak’s SRC International case did not show exceptional circumstances for review.
KUALA LUMPUR: The prosecution in Najib Razak’s case involving the embezzlement of RM42 million in funds belonging to SRC International Sdn Bhd claimed that the former prime minister was given a fair trial and there was no prejudgment in his final appeal at the Federal Court.
Deputy public prosecutor Ashrof Adrin Kamarul said the review application on the Federal Court’s decision requested by Najib under Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1995 had no merit and was an abuse of the court process.
“The applicant’s (Najib) opinion that this case is a suitable and proper case for the Federal Court to use the existing powers and jurisdiction under Rule 137 is wrong and without merit.
“The facts and circumstances of this case do not allow the use of Rule 137 since this case does not show exceptional circumstances for review,” he said in answering the affidavit filed in response to Najib’s affirmed supporting affidavit on Sept 6.
Ashrof, who filed the answering affidavit on Oct 7, said the existing jurisdiction of the court should not be used to review the Federal Court’s decision based on merit, as otherwise, it would result in there being no definitive litigation process.
“This case (Najib’s review) is not an unusual case where a review can be allowed. Therefore, this review application should be rejected by the court,” he said.
He said there was no reason for the applicant to be shocked or surprised when the Federal Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court.
He said the Federal Court found that the sentence imposed on the applicant was not excessive and upheld the conviction and sentence.
“The respondent (deputy public prosecutor) also did not challenge the punishment imposed on the applicant. Therefore, I state that there is nothing illegal in the eyes of the law and in conflict with the Federal Constitution regarding the punishment imposed on the applicant by the Federal Court,” said Ashrof.
Najib, 69, filed an application to review the Federal Court’s decision which upheld the conviction and sentence against him for misappropriating RM42 million in funds belonging to SRC International.
He also requested permission to review the decision of the Federal Court on Aug 23, which rejected his appeal and upheld his conviction and sentence of 12 years in prison and a fine of RM210 million, or in default, another five years in prison.
As an alternative, Najib requested that the appeal be heard again by a new Federal Court quorum consisting of at least seven judges.
Najib, who is currently serving his sentence at Kajang prison, also applied for a stay of execution of the conviction and sentence pending the hearing of the review application.
His affidavit filed in support of the application states that he truly believes and has been advised by his solicitor that the decision of the Federal Court can be reviewed in accordance with Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1995.
KUALA LUMPUR: The prosecution in Najib Razak’s case involving the embezzlement of RM42 million in funds belonging to SRC International Sdn Bhd claimed that the former prime minister was given a fair trial and there was no prejudgment in his final appeal at the Federal Court.
Deputy public prosecutor Ashrof Adrin Kamarul said the review application on the Federal Court’s decision requested by Najib under Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1995 had no merit and was an abuse of the court process.
“The applicant’s (Najib) opinion that this case is a suitable and proper case for the Federal Court to use the existing powers and jurisdiction under Rule 137 is wrong and without merit.
“The facts and circumstances of this case do not allow the use of Rule 137 since this case does not show exceptional circumstances for review,” he said in answering the affidavit filed in response to Najib’s affirmed supporting affidavit on Sept 6.
Ashrof, who filed the answering affidavit on Oct 7, said the existing jurisdiction of the court should not be used to review the Federal Court’s decision based on merit, as otherwise, it would result in there being no definitive litigation process.
“This case (Najib’s review) is not an unusual case where a review can be allowed. Therefore, this review application should be rejected by the court,” he said.
He said there was no reason for the applicant to be shocked or surprised when the Federal Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court.
He said the Federal Court found that the sentence imposed on the applicant was not excessive and upheld the conviction and sentence.
“The respondent (deputy public prosecutor) also did not challenge the punishment imposed on the applicant. Therefore, I state that there is nothing illegal in the eyes of the law and in conflict with the Federal Constitution regarding the punishment imposed on the applicant by the Federal Court,” said Ashrof.
Najib, 69, filed an application to review the Federal Court’s decision which upheld the conviction and sentence against him for misappropriating RM42 million in funds belonging to SRC International.
He also requested permission to review the decision of the Federal Court on Aug 23, which rejected his appeal and upheld his conviction and sentence of 12 years in prison and a fine of RM210 million, or in default, another five years in prison.
As an alternative, Najib requested that the appeal be heard again by a new Federal Court quorum consisting of at least seven judges.
Najib, who is currently serving his sentence at Kajang prison, also applied for a stay of execution of the conviction and sentence pending the hearing of the review application.
His affidavit filed in support of the application states that he truly believes and has been advised by his solicitor that the decision of the Federal Court can be reviewed in accordance with Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1995.
The Najib conviction in this SRC case, if you strip it of the political polemics, is really not a complicated case, based on the evidence.
ReplyDeleteNothing special that requires another Federal Court bench to review the Federal Court decision.
The last time I remember the Federal Court agreed to review an earlier Court judgement in the Boonsom Boonyanit V. Adorna Properties Case , that was a clear injustice to Boonsom, that also created major subsequent negative repercussions to the security of ALL Private Land Titles in Malaysia.
If we are serious about everyone being treated as equals, Najib should be transported to court in his Kajang best and driven in prison vehicles.
ReplyDelete