By Joe Fernandez
Former Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, as political prisoner, should be under house arrest as decreed by Agong on 29 January 2024!
OPINION: It’s good news that former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and former treasury secretary-general Tan Sri Irwan Serigar Abdullah were granted DNAA (discharge not amounting to acquittal) on the RM6.6b 1MDB related case involving the Abu Dhabi state fund International Petroleum Investment Company.
However, Najib remains political prisoner in jail. He should be under house arrest as decreed by Agong on 29 January 2024.
The Trial by Media continues on the RM2.6b 1MDB case as High Court Judge Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah ruled on 30 October, not withstanding hearsay, circumstantial evidence, and conspiracy theories, that substantial evidence has been introduced and prima facie case made out against Najib.
Najib billions
The social media has been flooded by graphics claiming that Najib, and others, stole billions from 1MDB.
If so, the Attorney General (AG) should file civil action against Najib, if not others as well, and freeze, seize and forfeit the alleged billions in money laundering assets and “secret profits” as state revenue. There’s no further proof necessary under the Definition of money laundering. The proof lies in the money laundering assets.
Under the Definition in international law, read compliant by national law, money laundering was proven by the accumulation of capital far beyond what’s possible within lifetime.
Political prisoner
Again, Agong by Decree, granted Najib six years under halving. Two years off under remission leaves balance four years. Najib serves two years. He should have been released on 23 Aug this year. There’s no need for house arrest unless he’s deemed as political prisoner. Najib’s conviction on the RM42m SRC International case wasn’t perfected in law for perfection in law, on 23 August 2022, when he was jailed unrepresented.
The Bar Council, in evading Agong, had filed judicial review against the Pardon’s Board on its 29 January 2024 letter on the halving of Najib’s 12 year jail sentence, and fine reduction, on the RM42m SRC case on political donation, deemed by the court as “deriving personal benefits”. The Bar Council should have known that it has no locus standi (legal standing) on the matter. It was nonjusticiable.
The Court has no jurisdiction on what isn’t law. The court of law remains only about law.
Agong’s decree based on discretion, isn’t law.
The judge should have just said no jurisdiction. There’s no need for explanation. The court was about law.
Although Discretion isn’t law, it does not exist if abuse of power can be proven. There’s case law on abuse of power.
It’s unthinkable that Agong commits abuse of power.
In the US, for example, Executive Order can be challenged in the Supreme Court. Generally, the court will not set aside Executive Order.
The High Court was checkmate against the Bar. There must be remission on the halving.
Immunity
In resolving Najib’s plight in jail, last but not least, the lacuna (gap) in local law on BFD (Basic Features Doctrine) should be addressed.
It’s true that the Federal Constitution, Indian Constitution and the US Constitution mentions no BFD — it also means that certain clauses in the Constitution cannot be amended, lest the supreme law of the land risks going against itself — but it has been resolved by the Supreme Court of India and the US Supreme Court. The BFD permeates the Indian and US Constitution. Likewise, the Federal Court will discover that the BFD permeates the Federal Constitution as well.
Under the BFD, the head of government/state and Parliament stands indemnified, has immunity, implicit Pardon for acts in public office. The US Supreme Court, in contradiction in terms, ruled that immunity does not cover private criminal acts while in public office. The court added, in disingenuous take, that the threshold cannot be crossed on acts in public office for considering private criminal acts while in public office.
The bottomline is that the High Court, based on the BFD, had no jurisdiction on the RM42m SRC International case on political donation.
Ironically, the Umno Constitution states that the President can keep political donation in personal account/s.
Rule Of Law
We can recall Chief Justice (CJ) Tun Richard Malanjum’s Farewell Address in 2019 on the rule of law vs the letter of the law, among others, in resolving issues in conflict between parties in dispute.
Malanjum didn’t mention politically motivated cases, political prosecution and political persecution. He was more concerned about skills for law practice and court room skills.
The CJ virtually conceded and/or implied, in True Confession, that he couldn’t convince the legal fraternity and the court of law and judiciary that the letter of the law, by itself, wasn’t law at all and could not be passed off as the rule of law.
Media
The hysterical media, an unthinking animal which can be manipulated, must be kept in perspective.
Najib did introduce legal reforms as evident in the now repealed six emergency ordinances and Internal Security Act (ISA). Also, he brought in GST (goods and services tax) and BRIM (bantuan rakyat satu Malaysia). He tried using 1MDB for political donations and CSR (corporate social responsibilities).
The fatal flaw was not calling for RCI (Royal Commission of Inquiry) on 1MDB after former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir Mohamad and DAP, based on the Three Mantra, initiated Trial by Media against Najib before GE14 in 2018. Mahathir chanted the Mantra daily, “Najib curi duit”, “Najib curi duit kerajaan”, “Najib curi duit rakyat”.
● Longtime Borneo watcher Joe Fernandez has been writing for many years on both sides of the Southeast Asia Sea. JF keeps a Blog under FernzTheGreat on the nature of human relationships.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune.
