KUALA LUMPUR: All affidavits pertaining to Datuk Seri Najib Razak's judicial review to determine the existence of an addendum order by the former King, which allegedly granted him house arrest, were hearsay, the High Court ruled today.
Judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh said all affidavits in Najib's case contained bare statements without mentioning the source and his belief of the existence of the addendum order.
An affidavit is a written, sworn statement of truth used as evidence in court or other legal proceedings.
The former prime minister had filed two affidavits to support his case while another the remaining two were from Umno president Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and his vice-president Datuk Seri Wan Rosdy Wan Ismail.
Zahid in his affidavit, confirmed the existence of an addendum order from the former Yang di-Pertuan Agong allowing his former boss to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest.
The deputy prime minister claimed the document was shown to him by former Selangor Umno treasurer Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Abdul Aziz at his house near Country Heights on Jan 30.
Zahid's contention was supported by Wan Rosdy when the Pahang Menteri Besar in his supporting affidavit also said Tengku Zafrul had told him of the document's existence dated Jan 29.
However, the judge, in his ruling, said Zahid's statements were purely hearsay as his belief and source of information were based solely on what he heard from Tengku Zafrul, with no direct knowledge of the addendum order.
"The applicant relied on the source, Tengku Zafrul, but the source did not affirm any affidavit. There is also no explanation forthcoming as to this act.
"The source was available but not used.
"Tengku Zafrul had attempted to file an affidavit but this court denied him as the law does not allow him to do so at the leave (permission) stage," he said.
He said as a result, there was no affidavit verifying the material facts stated by Najib in his application.
"As such, there can be no arguable case for further investigation at the substantive stage."
Amarjeet also stated that no written law or provision in the Federal Constitution imposes a legal duty on the Pardons Board to confirm the existence of, or produce, any order related to the exercise of the power of pardon.
The court also did not issue any order for costs.
Najib was represented by his lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah while Senior Federal Counsels Shamsul Bolhassan and Ahmad Hanir Hambaly appeared for the government.
In April, Najib filed a judicial review to establish the existence of the addendum order dated Jan 29, issued by former Yang di-Pertuan Agong which he claimed the government had kept silent.
He named the Home Minister, Prison Department commissioner general, Attorney-General (AG), Federal Territories Pardons Board, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform), Legal Affairs Division director-general, and the government as respondents.
Najib claimed that his lawyers have requested an original copy or a copy of the order from the Kajang Prison but have not received a response.
He also claimed the subsequent inaction by the Home Minister and Prison Department commissioner general to execute the said order, is irrational, unreasonable, illegal, and arbitrary and offends the Federal Constitution and laws.
On Jan 29, the Federal Territories Pardons Board, which the then King presided over, halved Najib's 12-year jail sentence for abuse of power and criminal breach of trust in the SRC International case and reduced his RM210 million fine to RM50 million.