KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk Seri Najib Razak was today ordered to enter his defence on four abuse of power charges as well as 21 others involving money laundering.
Presiding judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah made the decision at the end of the prosecution case, six years after the former prime minister was first charged for the alleged offences.
Sequerah full judgment:
A) Introduction
1. The accused is a former Prime Minister of Malaysia and stands charged with 4 offences under section 23(1) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (MACC) Act and 21 offences under section 4(1) (a) Anti Money Laundering Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (AMLATFA) (Act 613).
2. The prosecution has closed its case and submissions, both written and oral have been made.
3. The duty upon the court at this stage as required by law under section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) is to subject the totality of the evidence of the prosecution to a positive and maximum evaluation of the credibility and reliability of all the evidence adduced in order to determine whether the elements or ingredients of the offences as framed in the charges have been established.
B) Preliminary Issues
i. Allegations of defective charges
4. The 4 charges of using office or position for gratification (abuse of power) under section 23(1) (MACC) Act and charges 1 to 9 under section 4(1) (a) AMLATFA have been assailed by the Defence for being defective, duplicitous and ambiguous and therefore bad in law and in violation of Section 163 of the Malaysian Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
5. Upon a perusal and examination of all 4 abuse of power charges under s.23(1) MACC Act, it is clear that they contain the time and place and it stated the offence with which the accused is charged.
6. All the 4 charges therefore fulfil all the legal criteria required of a charge as provided for under sections 152, 153 and 154 of the CPC.
7. In respect of charges 1 to 9 under section 4 AMLATFA which are also alleged to be incorrect and illegal and bad for multiplicity, I find that they also contain the time and place and it stated the offence with which the accused is charged and no prejudice is thus occasioned to the accused.
8. I find all 21 charges under the AMALATFA fulfil all the legal criteria required of a charge as provided for under sections 152, 153 and 154 of the CPC.
9. Section 422 CPC provides that any irregularity in charges can be cured provided that the accused was not prejudiced in any manner and no failure of justice was occasioned.
10.I do not find that the accused has been misled or has suffered prejudice in relation to the charges proffered.
11.In any event, section 156 CPC states that any errors or omissions (which I do not find to be the case here), with respect to the charge are not to be regarded as material unless the accused was in fact misled as a result, which has not been the case here.
12.Under all the circumstances, this court finds no merit in the contention by the defence that the 4 abuse of power charges under section 23(1) MACC Act and the charges under section 4 AMLATFA were defective, duplicitous, ambiguous and in violation of Section 163 CPC.
Failure to specify the accused's supposed interest
13.The defence submitted that the nature of the Accused's supposed interests has not been specified in the four (4) s.23(1) charges under the MACC Act. The Court of Appeal decision in PP v Dato'Sri Najib bin Hj Abd Razak [2021] MLJU 2485 made it clear that the interest element is not an integral part of the offence under s 23(1), it being an offending provision.
14.A perusal and examination of each of the 4 charges reveal that the interests of the accused have been clearly spelt out and also the specific action that he took.
15.This court finds thus that there is no merit to the contention that the prosecution failed to specify the accused's specific interest in the 4 charges so as to render it defective.
ii. Admissibility of documents