The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has quizzed Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak this morning in Parliament over the SRC International Sdn Bhd's RM42 million deposited into his personal accounts and the RM2.6 billion donation.
Never before has an anti-graft body questioned Malaysia's highest chief executive in the executive body over alleged graft practices.
Sources from the Prime Minister's Department and Attorney-General's Chambers revealed that several senior officers have quizzed Najib.
In a statement later, MACC confirmed it met the prime minister for two and a half hours.
"Prime minister has given good co-operation to MACC.
"MACC will inform on further development from time to time," it said.
This issue erupted when the Wall Street Journal and whistleblower website Sarawak Report revealed the transactions based on leaked documents.
Najib later claimed that the RM2.6 billion, transferred prior to the last general elections, was a political donation from the Middle East, which was corroborated by the MACC.
However, MACC is still probing the matter with regard to gratification.
Meanwhile, the SRC funds amounting to RM42 million was transferred through its subsidiaries into Najib's accounts late 2014 and early this year.
SRC, which is a former 1MDB subsidiary, is a firm owned by the finance ministry, where Najib is also the minister.
Najib claims conspiracy to topple him
Najib has consistently denied any wrongdoing and abusing public funds for personal gain.
The prime minister also claimed that there is a conspiracy to topple him.
Two days ago, opposition lawmakers were up in arms when Najib did not appear in Parliament to explain the RM2.6 billion issue as stated earlier.
Instead, Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi delivered a three-minute explanation , which did not include new information, while the speaker ruled there can be no questions or debate.
Quizzed on Najib's absence later, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Azalina Othman Said told reporters the attorney-general warned that such discussions would be sub judice .