The hearing into former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak's application for an interim gag order on the case involving his three criminal breach of trust, three money laundering and one abuse of power charges to be made permanent began in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur today.

The gag order was imposed on the media and public from discussing the case which involves SRC International Sdn Bhd, a former subsidiary of 1MDB.

All the charges are in relation to the RM42 million which was allegedly deposited into Najib's personal bank accounts from SRC International, where the fund was part of the RM4 billion which the Retirement Fund Inc (KWAP) entrusted to 1MDB.

Lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who is appearing for Najib began his submission while the prosecution was represented by Attorney-General’s Chambers’ Inspectorate of Litigation sector director Manoj Kurup and the Trial and Appeals division head Mohd Hanafiah Zakaria.

Najib is the highest-ranking politician in the country to be charged with criminal offences.

Before this, there were cases involving former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, former Selangor menteri besar Mohd Khir Toyo and Harun Idris, former ministers Kasitah Gaddam and Mokhtar Hashim, and former Penang chief minister and present Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng.

The hearing today was presided by High Court judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali.

Shafee (photo), in his two-hour submission for a permanent gag order on the media and the public at large, touched on various reports that appeared in Sarawak Report, the Wall Street Journal and also comments made by readers of Malaysiakini on the case.

Najib is concerned, Shafee said, of a trial against him in the media.

This, the lawyer said, is further compounded by comments made by present Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng, an article by attorney-general Tommy Thomas in Malaysiakini in 2016, and also by the tell-all press conference of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Mohd Shukri Abdull.

"The defence is concerned with the administration of justice in this case following a trial by media made in relation to the comments made by these people and articles which had appeared on this case.

"The 'oxygen of publicity' will have an adverse impact on my client and the trial. The articles and comments made (by politicans) have added 'the seeds of poison', resulting in the comments made by readers," he said, adding that he and his client were concerned that the witnesses who are about to testify would be influenced.

Shafee further argued that several readers (from Malaysiakini on articles concerning Najib and this case) have undermined and made accusations on the judiciary.

He claimed there are thousands of articles regarding this case, which may influence the outcome of the trial and undermine the administration of justice.

Shafee said the purpose of the gag order is preemptive, to enable witnesses to come in without interference (influenced by those articles and social media reports) and to ensure it does not hamper the administration of justice.

Prosecution: Motion is not specific

DPP Hanafiah said in reply that the motion is not specific and hence the court should reject it as it cannot impose a gag order on the public at large.

He said Shafee has complained of statements made by Mahathir, Lim and Tony Pua but these are not stated in the motion to gag them.

"The order sought is to seek a gag on the party or people at large. This is impossible to enforce," he said.

Hanafiah said the notice of motion, as in a contempt proceeding, should be specific in naming the respondent and not be generally made to address the public or media at large.

"It must name the respondent. The court cannot provide an order that applies to a party at large," he said.

Hanafiah also pointed to the defective motion for the orders sought as it sought to bring those who violate the order to be straightaway cited for contempt.

Where else, the DPP questioned, does the court procedure stipulate that leave has to be gained to cite someone for contempt.

"As a result of this, the court cannot make the orders," he added.

[More to follow]