Become a member

Get the best offers and updates relating to Liberty Case News.

― Advertisement ―

spot_img
HomeMalaysia NewsNajib's Defense Objects To 'Defective' Prosecution Appeal In 1MDB Audit Report Case

Najib’s Defense Objects To ‘Defective’ Prosecution Appeal In 1MDB Audit Report Case

In a significant development, legal representatives acting on behalf of former Prime Minister Najib Razak have lodged an objection to the prosecution’s appeal against his exoneration in the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) audit report case. Advocates Shafee Abdullah, Farhan Shafee, and Alaistair Brandah Norman, the linchpins of Najib’s defense, have raised concerns regarding the appeal’s legality, asserting that it stands as a ‘defective’ legal motion due to a critical omission.

At the heart of their contention lies the prosecution’s failure to fulfill a fundamental procedural requirement. The defense contends that the prosecution neglected to file a petition of appeal, as stipulated by the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994. As per these regulations, the prosecution must formally present the petition within 10 days from the moment they receive the appeal records from the High Court registry. This pivotal document ought to outline cogent reasons why the High Court’s verdict to acquit both Najib and co-accused Arul Kanda Kandasamy should be overturned.

Najib’s legal team asserts that this procedural oversight renders the prosecution’s appeal ‘defective’ from the outset. In essence, the absence of the requisite petition undermines the very foundation of the appeal, signaling a significant legal impediment.

This matter is poised for further clarification and resolution, as the case management process advances. The legal representatives anticipate the forthcoming case management hearing scheduled for August 30, where the intricacies of the appeal’s procedural aspects are expected to be scrutinized.

The contours of this legal saga were set in motion on March 3, when the High Court rendered its judgment, leading to Najib’s acquittal from charges of abuse of power. The court’s decision spared him from the necessity of mounting a defense.

Arul Kanda Kandasamy, who faced allegations of abetting Najib, was also absolved of charges. The High Court’s rationale behind this dual acquittal rested on its conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against both defendants.

The High Court’s judgment also bore additional implications, particularly regarding Arul Kanda’s position. Justice Zaini Mazlan, the presiding High Court judge at the time, issued a certificate of indemnity in Arul Kanda’s favor. This certificate serves as a protective mechanism, affirming that no further civil or criminal proceedings can be initiated against Arul Kanda in relation to the 1MDB audit report.