Judiciary files police report to enable criminal defamation probe against allegations on Najib’s SRC trial judge

KUALA LUMPUR, March 16 — The judiciary today said it has lodged a police report to enable investigations on criminal defamation on allegations against the judge who had heard former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s trial on the misappropriation of RM42 million from former 1Malaysia Development Berhad’s (1MDB) unit SRC International Sdn Bhd.

The Office of the Chief Registrar of the Federal Court cited allegations in two online articles dated March 14, namely on portal MalaysiaNow titled “Group calling for Najib’s pardon now wants judge Nazlan arrested” and on the blog Malaysia Today titled “Shocking Revelation: Najib’s Trial Judge Nazlan’s Conflict-of-Interest Exposed”.

Referring to the allegations which had claimed a Court of Appeal judge was involved in both the 1MDB and SRC scandals, the Chief Registrar’s Office said the allegations would interfere with the courts’ administration of justice.

“It is notified that the statements that were published in those articles contain a few matters which are believed would interfere with the administration of criminal justice and this country’s judiciary,” it said in a statement.

“Following that, a police report has been made by this office, to enable investigations under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, Section 499 of the Penal Code and other related legal provisions.

“This Office asks that the public be more careful and not issue any statement that can interfere with the conduct of a case that is on trial and at the same time interferes with the administration of criminal justice and the country’s judicial institution,” it concluded.

Najib’s lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah argued that Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali should have disqualified himself from hearing the case. — Picture by Miera Zulyana

Section 233 covers the offence of improper use of network facilities or network services including the creating or initiating of the transmission of any comment which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. This offence is punishable with a maximum RM50,000 fine or a maximum one-year jail term or both if convicted and a further fine of RM1,000 per day for each day the offence is continued after conviction.

Section 499 is the offence of criminal defamation which cover situations such as when words are published with the intention to harm or with the knowledge or with reason to believe that the accusation made will harm the reputation of any person, and is punishable under Section 500 with a maximum two-year jail term or fine or both.

On March 14, Najib’s lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah claimed that Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali — who was the High Court judge who had heard and decided on Najib’s SRC trial — should have disqualified himself from hearing the case.

Nazlan was the judge who had heard Najib’s SRC trial at the High Court which had started in April 2019 and who delivered the guilty verdict in July 2020 against Najib. Nazlan was elevated to be a Court of Appeal judge in February 2022.

More than one and a half years from the High Court’s July 2020 decision, Shafee claimed that Najib’s lawyers had only recently discovered that Nazlan had previously in 2012 worked as Maybank’s company secretary and group general counsel.

Shafee claimed that Nazlan should not have heard the trial on SRC, due to the latter’s past role as company secretary and group general counsel for Maybank in March 2012 internal meetings, which was the same year the bank had lent RM4.17 billion to 1MDB to help finance the company’s acquisition of independent power producer Tanjong Energy Holdings Sdn Bhd (TEHSB).

Shafee had described SRC as a wholly-owned subsidiary of 1MDB. SRC was only under 1MDB’s ownership for a few months from August 2011 to February 2012 before it came directly under the Finance Ministry-owned Ministry of Finance (MOF) Incorporated’s ownership from February 14, 2012 onwards.

The SRC trial involved Najib’s alleged misappropriation of RM42 million said to have originated from RM4 billion in loans taken from the Retirement Fund Incorporated (KWAP), and any loans that Maybank had given to 1MDB in the past were not part of the SRC trial.

Shafee had said Najib’s lawyers would file an application to the Federal Court to add the purported new evidence — in the form of Nazlan’s 2012 Maybank position — to Najib’s appeal against his conviction in the SRC case.

Shafee had suggested that Nazlan’s purported failure to disclose his Maybank position in 2012 could allegedly even lead to outcomes such as Najib’s lawyers seeking a retrial of the SRC case where Najib was found guilty.

Following the High Court’s July 2020 decision which found Najib to be guilty over the misappropriation of SRC’s RM42 million, the Court of Appeal’s three-judge panel had in December 2021 also unanimously upheld Najib’s conviction and fine and jail sentencing.

No hearing date has been fixed yet for Najib’s actual SRC appeal before the Federal Court, and Najib’s lawyers had previously indicated that they intend to bring in a Queen’s Counsel from the UK to represent him in the SRC appeal. Queen’s Counsel is a term typically referring to leading senior lawyers in the UK who handle more complex cases.

Curiously, news reports in August 2018 had already reported Nazlan — who is a University of Oxford graduate — as having previously worked in Maybank, and had also specified that his past positions at Maybank included being the bank’s general counsel and head of its corporate and legal services.