Throughout their oral arguments today, former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s attorneys protested about the admissibility of proof adduced by the prosecution about his RM42 million SRC International Sdn Bhd corruption trial, with the crux of their argument focused on discrepancies throughout witness testimony.
Defense counsel Harvinderjit Singh pointed out how funds that wound up within Najib’s bank accounts were transacted without his consent, suggesting the lack of mens rea, or the former prime minister’s motive or understanding of an offence.
He argued that the prosecution’s reliance on proof, which he claims is founded on the assumption of expertise, will not meet the requirements to justify a judgment for his client and would in effect be able to assist the court in acquitting Najib.
The defense has formed their argument to bank on the tiniest information and the manipulation of selective cross-examination admissions; they appear to take one reality to create a whole mountain out of it.
His statement that a Najib affidavit in 2016 surrounding a civil claim against former MCA president Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik did not amount to an admission of guilt was also among the topics that Harvinderjit touched on today.
This was in response to Najib’s affidavit filed in court during the civil case then, where he had claimed that SRC International had received RM42 million that ended up in bank accounts recorded under his claim.
Earlier today, Harvinderjit had stated that the Najib allegedly wasting the RM42 million believed to be from SRC International was not a criminal violation of confidence, claiming that the money was misappropriated by third parties, but point the finger at former SRC chief executive Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil and fugitive financier Low Taek Jho or Jho Low.
The High Court agreed to consider the oral arguments from both defense and prosecution three days from June 1 to June 3 after the defendant withdrew the argument on March 11.
Najib faces seven charges; including three allegations of criminal violation of confidence for a combined RM42 million of The Foreign funds when entrusted with its power as the then Prime Minister and Finance Minister, and a single accusation under the anti-corruption statute of abussing the same roles for self-gratification of the same RM42 million number.
The remaining three of the seven allegations are the same cumulative amount of RM42 million supposedly for money-laundering.