ڤندعواان بنته ڤرموهونن نجيب لانتيق ‘قوين’س چونسل’
The prosecution has shot down Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s application to appoint a Queen’s Counsel (QC) from the United Kingdom (UK) in a final bid to overturn his conviction in the SRC International Sdn Bhd corruption case.
It argued that Najib’s application was devoid of any merit and that he had failed to provide the necessary justification to have QC Jonathan Laidlaw to represent him.
“It is indeed strange for the applicant to say that there are no local lawyers to defend the charges faced by him when his own lead counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and his team, defended him right from the start over the past three years.
“It is thus an irony to say that there are no local lawyers with special qualification or experience to do it. It is actually Laidlaw who has no experience in arguing these charges before the Malaysian courts,” Deputy Public Prosecutor Mohd Ashrof Adrin Kamarul said.
KUALA LUMPUR: The prosecution has shot down Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s application to appoint a Queen’s Counsel (QC) from the United Kingdom (UK) in a final bid to overturn his conviction in the SRC International Sdn Bhd corruption case.
It argued that Najib’s application was devoid of any merit and that he had failed to provide the necessary justification to have QC Jonathan Laidlaw to represent him.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Mohd Ashrof Adrin Kamarul, in an affidavit to oppose Laidlaw’s bid to represent Najib, said it was difficult to accept that out of the 21,625 advocates and solicitors in Malaysia, not one was deemed by Najib to possess special qualification or experience to handle his appeal.
TONTON: JANGAN MAKAN GAJI BUTA
Laidlaw, he said, also does not have the Bahasa Malaysia qualification as required under the law to qualify for admission as an ad hoc advocate and solicitor under Act 166.
“It is indeed strange for the applicant to say that there are no local lawyers to defend the charges faced by him when his own lead counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and his team, defended him right from the start over the past three years.
“It is thus an irony to say that there are no local lawyers with special qualification or experience to do it. It is actually Laidlaw who has no experience in arguing these charges before the Malaysian courts,” he said.
Mohd Ashrof said it was difficult to understand how Laidlaw, being a stranger to domestic Malaysian law, was more equipped and qualified than senior criminal lawyers, including Shafee, who regularly appears before all tiers of the Malaysian courts to argue similar cases as faced by Najib.
“I state that if we ignore the political standing of the appellant, then this case is just another criminal appeal which does not deserve any special consideration for the admission of any foreign lawyer to argue the pending appeal before the Federal Court.
“It is obvious from the grounds of judgment that the appeal is based primarily on facts and law which have been dealt with by the High Court and Court of Appeal.”
Shafee had previously filed an affidavit to support a bid by Laidlaw to represent Najib after stating that a QC was needed to assist him in complex issues and legal questions in the SRC appeal at the Apex Court.
The senior counsel argued that Laidlaw had special qualifications and experience of a nature not available among advocates and solicitors in Malaysia.
He said the lawyer had appeared in 109 reported cases in various courts, had qualifications and experience in a whole range of corruption cases both in the UK and in overseas jurisdictions.
Laidlaw, he said, had also prosecuted the largest ever investigation into corruption in the Metropolitan police service which led to the conviction of two officers, who then turned Queen’s evidence against a number of former colleagues.
He said Laidlaw had also been listed by the Sunday Times as one of Britain’s 500 most influential individuals.
However, Mohd Ashrof said Laidlaw had not shown himself as one who possessed special qualifications or experience of a nature not available amongst advocates and solicitors in Malaysia.
“I wish to state that there are numerous cases of similar nature that have been argued by local lawyers from the magistrate’s courts right up to the federal court.
“I can list 168 cases of similar nature that have been argued from the High Court to the Federal Court over the years…the cases, including celebrated cases, were decided by our courts,” he said.
Mohd Ashrof said the fact that local advocates and solicitors had regularly appeared and argued abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and anti money laundering offences (all charges faced by Najib), showed they were capable of arguing such cases.
Mohd Ashrof also pointed out that the Malaysian courts have not allowed application for ad hoc appearance in criminal cases since 1971.
On Dec 8 last year, the Court of Appeal upheld Najib’s conviction and the 12-year jail sentence and the RM210 million fine for misappropriating RM42 million belonging to SRC International.
Judge Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil, who presided with Has Zanah Mehat and Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, unanimously dismissed Najib’s appeal against the High Court’s decision on July 28, 2020.
The Federal Court would be the final avenue for the Pekan Member of Parliament to appeal against his sentence and conviction in the SRC International case.
Source:
