PUTRAJAYA: The sole dissenting judge in Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s review application Friday held that it was unfair for the former Prime Minister to pay the price for the mistakes done by his counsel in the SRC International Sdn Bhd appeal hearing.
Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Datuk Abdul Rahman Sebli, who chaired a five-member bench, said Najib’s counsel (Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik) had been denied the opportunity to submit, as said by the latter, that he was not prepared to do so after taking the case at the last minute.
“The counsel did not submit after informing the panel of judges that he was unprepared to do so. This led to only one party submitting before the earlier panel, which was the deputy public prosecutor Datuk V. Sithambaram.
“The applicant (Najib) was not heard at all. The applicant is at a great and substantial injustice. He was in a disadvantaged state, as he was not represented during the appeal. It was unfair that the applicant was paying the highest price for the mistakes done by his counsel.
“The applicant’s only interest is to see his lawyer act for him in his best interest, nothing more and nothing less,” the judge said when allowing Najib’s application to review the decision of the previous panel of the Federal Court which upheld his conviction and 12 years jail sentence and fine for misappropriation of RM42 million in SRC International funds.
In the 4-1 majority judgment, the four judges who dismissed the former Prime Minister’s application were Federal Court judges Datuk Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Datuk Rhodzariah Bujang and Datuk Nordin Hassan and Court of Appeal judge Datuk Abu Bakar Jais.
In his decision, Justice Abdul Rahman said the previous bench should have let the applicant (Najib) address the bench first before the prosecution made its submissions.
“This did not happen, the prosecution was allowed to submit for two full days…this was surreal,” said the judge, adding that the conviction against the accused should be quashed as there was no legal representation.
Justice Abdul Rahman opined that an adjournment should have been granted, not to scuttle the case, but to allow for the former premier to find a new counsel.
“The applicant (Najib) has the right to effective counsel. In the present case, the earlier panel had denied the applicant the right to have effective counsel. The counsel was shackled.
“The previous panel had said that it had given Najib’s counsel four months to prepare. It was not true. The four months were for Messrs Shafee and Co (Najib’s previous counsel). They were not for his new counsel Hisyam. Hence, the application for review for the adjournment must be granted,” said Justice Abdul Rahman.
