Prosecutor: Sri Ram not involved in Najib’s 1MDB investigation, not biased

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 22 — Private lawyer Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram is impartial and should not be disqualified from leading the prosecution of Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) cases, a deputy public prosecutor said today.

Ahmad Akram Gharib argued that Sri Ram did not exceed his role as a prosecutor since he was not involved in the investigations on Najib.

Ahmad Akram said Sri Ram only “supervised” investigations, with such a role typically including the giving of legal advice to investigators on what evidence is admissible in court according to laws such as the Evidence Act.

“As a senior deputy public prosecutor, Sri Ram had powers to supervise investigations,” he told the Criminal High Court here.

“We submit this application (to disqualify Sri Ram) is baseless. There’s nothing wrong with supervising, the act of the DPP giving out instructions… what is admissible or inadmissible evidence,” he later added.

Arguing that it was “baseless” to claim Sri Ram was involved in investigating Najib, Ahmad Akram pointed out Sri Ram was only appointed on August 31, 2018 while Najib was charged just 20 days later.

“How can they even suggest that Sri Ram is involved in investigations?” he asked when questioning the idea that Sri Ram could have been conducting investigations for the case in such a short period of time.

Najib was charged on September 20, 2018 with 25 counts of money-laundering and power abuse in relation to over RM2 billion of 1MDB funds.

Lawyer Ahmad Akram Gharib is pictured at the Kuala Lumpur High Court February 22, 2019. ― Picture by Yusof Mat Isa

Ahmad Akram was responding to the Wednesday arguments by Najib’s lawyer, Harvinder Singh, who had argued that Sri Ram should be disqualified as his alleged involvement in both the investigation and prosecution of Najib’s 1MDB cases would result in a “conflict of interest”.

Today, Ahmad Akram also disputed Harvinder’s arguments that Sri Ram was unfit to prosecute Najib over alleged bias and partiality.

Ahmad Akram rejected this by highlighting court proceedings in which Najib sought bail on September 20 after he was charged.

Ahmad Akram noted Najib’s lawyers had made the “unusual request” for the bail of RM3.5 million to be paid in instalments starting from September 21, but Sri Ram did not contest this.

“If he really is a prosecutor who is not fair, conflict of interest, biased… would he have done what he did? He could have objected to bail in instalments, what more (pay from) tomorrow, but he didn’t object,” he said.

Ahmad Akram also said Najib’s lawyers have not proven Sri Ram has committed “prosecutorial misconduct”, arguing that such claims remain mere allegations.

Among other things, Ahmad Akram also contested Najib’s lawyers’ claims on Wednesday that a prosecutor who is not impartial would affect Najib’s right to a fair trial.

Najib’s lawyers had argued that the conduct of Najib’s trial would allegedly go out of the trial judge’s “control” with a biased prosecutor, as the prosecutor would allegedly choose to withhold information favourable to Najib’s defence from Najib and even the judge.

But Ahmad Akram dismissed such a claim today, arguing that the September 20 bail proceedings for Najib’s 1MDB case at the Sessions Court showed that court proceedings were fully within the court’s control and not under Sri Ram’s control.

Ahmad Akram pointed out that the Sessions Court judge had rejected Sri Ram’s request then for the additional bail condition of barring Najib from publicly discussing his case, noting that meant Sri Ram did not influence the Sessions Court judge.

“What more they think Sri Ram can do it on a High Court judge?” he said. Hearing before High Court judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah will continue on February 28 afternoon, where Najib’s lawyers are expected to respond to arguments made by the prosecution today.

On December 21, Najib had applied to disqualify Sri Ram from leading the prosecution of three of his cases — namely 25 charges of money-laundering and power abuse involving more than RM2 billion of 1MDB funds; six charges of criminal breach of trust over RM6.64 billion; and one charge of power abuse involving the alleged tampering of the auditor-general’s 1MDB audit report.

Najib had initially sought for seven orders and declarations.

Harvinder today said Najib would only pursue two court orders, namely an order for the prosecution to produce a copy of Sri Ram’s letter of appointment as a senior deputy public prosecutor under Section 376(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and an order that Sri Ram be disqualified from continuing to act as senior DPP on behalf of the public prosecutor in these cases.

This is not the only court bid by Najib to have Sri Ram disqualified as his lead prosecutor, as he has also filed a separate challenge by seeking a judicial review at the civil High Court in Kuala Lumpur.

On February 20, High Court judge Datuk Azizah Nawawi dismissed Najib’s and Shafee’s separate applications for leave for judicial review to ultimately stop Sri Ram from prosecuting their cases.

Azizah said that Najib’s applications in both the civil and criminal courts were seeking the same results, and that it would be more convenient for the matter to be addressed at the Criminal High Court as the main trial was also there.

Today, Najib’s lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah argued that his client’s applications regarding Sri Ram at the civil and criminal courts were different, and told reporters that an appeal has been filed at the Court of Appeal against Azizah’s decision.