Nothing personal in FB post by chief justice's husband, DPP tells court

The Federal Court was today told that the 2018 Facebook post by the husband of Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat did not show any personal animosity towards Najib Razak but was rather a general comment of the people on social media. 

Ad hoc prosecutor V Sithambaram said the post was merely a personal commentary on the political scenario leading up to the 14th general election results.

"There was no nexus between the post which was published on May 11, 2018, and Najib’s appeals before the Federal Court on Aug 23 last year. 

"It is incredible that the applicant (Najib) only found out about this FB post on Aug 22 last year, on the eve of the continued appeals hearing on Aug 23.

"The filing of the recusal application was a desperate, last-minute attempt to scuttle the appeals. What a phenomenal coincidence that the applicant found out about a public Facebook post hours before the conclusion of the appeals hearing on Aug 23 last year.

"My Lord, the truth is they knew of the post but found it unworthy of a recusal application earlier. The eleventh-hour application was pure desperation to adjourn the appeals," he said.

On the appointment of Messrs Zaid Ibrahim Suflan TH Liew (ZIST), the deputy public prosecutor said the sole purpose of the firm taking over the SRC International case last year was to ask for an adjournment.

Sithambaram said the firm should not have taken over the case from Messrs Shafee & Co if it was not prepared to proceed with the appeals on the dates fixed for hearing in August 2022.

"Messrs ZIST took over the case with the sole purpose of asking for an adjournment of the case. It must be remembered that the hearing dates of the main appeals were fixed four months earlier at the request of the applicant’s solicitors, Messrs Shafee & Co.

"While Najib had the right to appoint a solicitor of his choice, this must be done in good time so as not to scuttle the hearing dates fixed four months earlier at the consent of all parties," he said, adding that the conduct of the applicant’s solicitors or counsel could not be condoned as it would otherwise mean that an adjournment can always be sought if new solicitors or counsel take over a hearing case that has already been fixed.

On the move by Najib’s ex-counsel Hisyam Teh Poh Teik to discharge himself from representing the former prime minister, Sithambaram said that the apex court had the discretion on whether to allow a counsel to discharge himself, especially in the midst of a hearing.

Sithambaram said that counsel who could not get an adjournment of appeals could not be allowed by backdoor methods to postpone the appeals by a tactical strategy of discharging themselves.

He further submitted that discharging Messrs Shafee & Co from representing the applicant was a strategic move by Najib to adjourn the appeals.

"We say this because the firm continued to act for the applicant in the 1MDB case at all relevant times. Muhammad Shafee Abdullah appeared for Najib in the recusal application in these appeals. Therefore, the discharge of Messrs Shafee & Co was a dubious move to force the court to postpone the appeals," he said.  

Sithambaram was speaking at the hearing of Najib’s application to review the Federal Court ruling upholding his conviction, 12-year jail sentence and RM210 million fine for the misappropriation of RM42 million in SRC International funds.

He submitted this before Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Abdul Rahman Sebli, who chaired a five-member panel also comprising Federal Court judges Vernon Ong Lam Kiat, Rhodzariah Bujang and Nordin Hassan, and Court of Appeal judge Abu Bakar Jais.

Najib, in his review application, is seeking to overturn the decision made by a five-member bench of the Federal Court led by Tengku Maimun on Aug 23 last year.