Apex Court Reserves Decision On AG's Appeal Over Najib's Purported Additional Document

PUTRAJAYA, July 9 (Bernama) -- The Federal Court today reserved its verdict on the Attorney General's appeal concerning the existence of a purported additional document allegedly permitting the former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest.

A three-member bench chaired by Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim deferred the judgment on the Attorney General’s (AG) appeal after hearing submissions from senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan, who acted for the AG as the appellant, and counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, representing Najib.

"We will inform the parties of the date when we are ready for a decision. Thank you for all the submissions and all the authorities submitted. Court is adjourned," said Justice Hasnah, who sat alongside Federal Court judges Datuk Zabariah Mohd Yusof and Datuk Hanipah Farikullah.

On April 28, the Federal Court granted the AG leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision concerning the alleged additional document linked to Najib.

On Jan 6, in a 2-1 majority decision, the Court of Appeal remitted Najib’s application regarding the purported existence of an additional document allowing him to serve the remainder of his six-year prison sentence under house arrest to the High Court for determination on its merits.

This decision overturned an earlier High Court ruling, which had dismissed Najib’s application for leave to commence judicial review concerning the alleged document.

Najib is currently serving a six-year custodial sentence for his conviction in the SRC International Sdn Bhd case, following the Federal Court’s dismissal of both his appeal and subsequent application for review.

In February 2023, the Pardons Board commuted Najib’s original 12-year sentence to six years and reduced the RM210 million fine imposed on him to RM50 million.

Earlier, Muhammad Shafee submitted that the duty of candour in judicial review did not require the respondent to obtain a copy of the additional document, as it is the role of the AG to confirm or deny its existence at the leave stage, if they are objecting to the same.

He submitted that the issue of whether the additional document could have been obtained with reasonable diligence during the High Court proceedings does not arise, as the respondent’s deponents clearly stated they had no access to the same due to its confidential nature at the relevant time.

He further submitted that his client had exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to verify the existence of the said document.

Muhammad Shafee said the document was only obtained post-judgment by the applicant’s son, Datuk Mohamad Nizar, and was subject to the condition that it could not be used without the palace’s consent.

"This restriction is crucial, as even if the document was in hand, the respondent was not legally or ethically free to use it until permission was granted. Once permission was granted on Dec 2, 2024, the respondent immediately filed it in court,” he added. 

Meanwhile, Shamsul agreed to a suggestion by Justice Hasnah that the AGC did not dispute the existence of an additional document. 

However, he asserted that the procedure for adducing new documents still has to be adhered.

"The respondent must comply with the rules and regulations of the court to tender new evidence. We maintain our stand. We rely on our written submission and leave it to the court," he said.

-- BERNAMA