Of broken chain of evidence and judicial process in doubt

The prosecution witness for Najib's first day court appearance for the 1MDB-Tanore case since started his sentence on Wednesday was Siti Zauyah Mohd Desa, the Deputy Secretary-General. 

She admitted not knowing the accuracy and authenticity of her statement as it was prepared. Its typical heresay rampantly used as evidence by the prosecution in the SRC case and believed it was used by Nazlan in his judgement together with his presumptions like no thank you note. Commonly allowed to be  heard in court are claims as such as "I assumed the order was from Najib", "XXX told me that Najib said this", etc.

Ironically, the Federal Court accepted the argument new evidence to be forwarded by Najib as heresay or after thought without flicking their ear flab to give a listen.

There is a mountain of doubts of minute details. For one, why is only Najib is being charged when tthose clearly revealed to be implicated are not charged or even protected by the Federal Court.

That is the optic seen by the non-prejudicial and off course, the pro-Najib side. The judicial discrepancy is too apparent to any casual observer that a social media commentator described as Constitutional crisis.

Lim Sian See Semalam jam 9:44 PG ·

SRC case key persons:

Mastermind: Jho Low - Not charged, cannot be located and DID NOT testify. Person who forged 20 bank transfer signatures: Person unknown, Not charged, cannot be located, no attempt to identify who was it and DID NOT testify. Person who managed Najib's accounts: Nik Faizal. Not charged, cannot be located and DID NOT testify. Person who allegedly instructed for money from Ihsan Perdana (ultimately from SRC) to be deposited into Najib's account: Datuk Azlin. Dead, DID NOT testify. Person who recommended and tabled paper in cabinet to be given RM4b govt guarantee: Nor Mohd Yaacob but allegedly paid RM85mil by Jho Low: Not charged, listed as prosecution witness but pulled back and DID NOT testify. Evidence not allowed to be admitted to court. Person who recommended Najib to open account and his own name and to monitor Najib's account for suspicious transactions but her (Zeti) family took close to RM700mil from Jho Low: Not charged, listed as prosecution witness but pulled back and DID NOT testify. Evidence not allowed to be admitted to court. Lawyer who prepared the agreements and was paid money by Jho Low: Not charged, cannot be located and DID NOT testify. Entire board of directors and all management of SRC who approved payment to Ihsan Perdana: Not charged, DID NOT testify. Bankers who broke banking code by dealing with non-authorized personnel (Joanna Yu) as well not sending account statement to Najib: Testified but not charged. So much evidence in this trial is hearsay and cannot be verified. The chain of evidence is long broken. But somehow the trial can proceed and judged by a newbie judge with zero criminal court experience. ----------------

Take a note that in November 2021, it was reported that 681 names were submitted by MACC to ACG for 1MDB offenses but only 4 were then charged. It naturally led to the belief by segment of the public that selective prosecution based on political consideration is in play.

The newbie criminal court judge, and the integrity of the judiciary is seriously thrown under he microscope and is being questioned. And that is how the following social media commentator summarised her observation (in Malay):

Nur Zaini 24 Ogos jam 8:17 PG ·

KRISIS PERLEMBAGAAN?

Sejauh mana sistem keadilan di Malaysia mendokong prinsip rukun negara Keluhuran Perlembagaan, Kedaulatan undang-undang dengan meneliti pengadilan kes DS Najib Razak?

Sejauh mana tinggi intergritinya untuk melindungi kita melihat corak keadilan dilaksanakan?

1. Hakim Sofian, Hakim Nazlan.

Hakim Sofian ditukar dengan Hakim Nazlan pada Julai 2018 selepas kecoh kontroversi yang adik lelakinya adalah ahli EXCO Pahang dan ADUN UMNO.

TAPI, penghakiman Hakim Nazlan dikekalkan walaupun selepas terdedah yang Hakim Nazlan adalah Penasihat Am dan Setiausaha Kumpulan Maybank antara 2006 hingga 2015.

Walaupun selepas terdedah yang Maybank mempunyai peranan dalam pembentukan SRC dan minit-minit mesyuarat dengan nama Hakim Nazlan.

Inilah sistem keadilan Malaysia. Tidakkah mereka subjektif kepada penilaiannya?

2. Ketua Hakim.

Hakim Sofian boleh ditukar kerana konflik adik lelakinya adalah ADUN UMNO.

Tetapi, Ketua Hakim boleh pulak mengetuai kes DS Najib walaupun terdedah suaminya menulis hantaran2 negatif akan DS Najib, malah turut menyimpulkan yang DS Najib bersalah dari awal lagi.

Jadi, kalau abang kepada ADUN UMNO tidak layak untuk menghakimi kes DS Najib Razak.

Apa yang melayakkan ketua hakim yang suaminya Zamani Ibrahim terang-terangan menulis hantaran negatif terhadap DS Najib untuk menjadi pengerusi panel hakim untuk kes DS Najib Razak?

Kalau kebencian suami Ketua Hakim terhadap DS Najib yang dibicarakan boleh diendahkan dan dikira tidak akan mempengaruhi sentimen beliau sebagai pengerusi panel kes SRC DS Najib.

Kenapa adik lelaki Hakim Sofian tidak boleh dilihat sekadar pilihan peribadi dan dikekalkan sebagai hakim?

Kenapa keteguhan integriti kehakiman Malaysia seolah-olah dipertahankan secara subjektif di Malaysia?

Tetapi, inilah sistem keadilan Malaysia.

3. Bukti yang dinafikan.

Penglibatan TS Zeti, suaminya dengan Jho Low yang mampu memudahkan transaksi kewangan seperti yang diarahkan Jho Low kepada pegawai Ambank Joanna yang mengakui dia melakukan tanpa pengetahuan DS Najib ditolak mentah-mentah.

DS Najib Razak merayu sekali lagi kepada Ketua Hakim, pengerusi panel penghakiman, tetapi selagi ditolak mentah-mentah dengan alasan kehakiman tidak pernah khilaf dalam kes ini.

Mudah. Maksum. Sempurna sungguh.

Kemudian, sekali lagi. Kehakiman Malaysia menolak untuk memasukkan bukti akan peranan Hakim Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali dengan Syarikat SRC International Sdn Bhd.

Jelasnya, bukti ini mampu membuktikan adanya konflik kepentingan oleh Hakim Nazlan, yang mampu mempertikaikan penghakiman yang dibuat oleh Hakim Nazlan sebelum ini. Secara tidak lansung, mampu membebaskan DS Najib.

Malahan, bukti penglibatan Maybank dalam penubuhan SRC dan bukti peranan Hakim Nazlan ini tidak pernah dibawa oleh pendakwaan pada 2018. Tambahan, Hakim Nazlan sendiri tidak pernah mendedahkan penglibatan beliau ketika menjatuhkan penghakiman terhadap DS Najib Razak.

Bagaimana bukti sepenting ini dinafikan untuk pembelaan?

Tetapi, inilah sistem keadilan Malaysia.

Inikah yang dikatakan keadilan, kesaksamaan?

4. Saman yang dinafikan.

DS Najib telah menfailkan saman kepada AMBB, AmIslamic, Joanna tetapi ditolak.

Walaupun, Pegawai Ambank Joanna Yu terang-terangan mengakui telah melanggar Akta Bank dan Institusi-Institusi Kewangan 1989 (Bafia) apabila dia menerima arahan Jho Low dan melaksanakannya tanpa pengetahuan DS Najib ketika di menjawab di kandang saksi.

5. Saksi, mereka yang masih bebas.

Hari ini. TS Zeti dan suaminya masih bebas walaupun siasatan bermula seawal Mac 2021.

Hari ini, siasatan kes Hakim Nazlan masih tidak dimuktamadkan walaupun setelah SPRM mendedahkan sedang menunggu Peguam Negara dari Mei 2022 lagi.

Sukar untuk saya melihat prinsip keluhuran perlembagaan, kedaulatan undang-undang dilaksanakan secara berintegriti oleh kehakiman Malaysia.

Sekiranya sekadar inilah keadilan, kesaksamaan yang boleh diberikan kepada DS Najib Razak yang besar jasanya kepada negara.

Tertanya-tanya, sejauh mana saya sebagai rakyat biasa mampu dilindungi oleh sistem keadilan, undang-undang di Malaysia?

------------

In the absence natural justice and opportunity to exhaust all avenues, is there legal protection in Malaysia?

Something for Malaysian citizens, businessmen and investors to rationally ponder beyond the fine prints and complicated technical caveat of law covering all possibilities. This could only happen when the dusk settle, emotional outpour subside and political preferential put aside.

Its not the first or second or third time a major compromise in the judicial process occurred in Malaysia. Has been going on for decades if not nearing half a century, and the inconsistency is widespread and blatant. Strangely, the ultimate player and conductor remain the same.