Najib's apology - Not everything is sub judice, says lawyer

Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak is fully within his legal rights to make statements regarding his case.

Speaking to Malaysiakini, he clarified that, despite many opinions on Najib’s recent apology, not all aspects of the matter fall under the sub judice rule.

“People are misunderstanding that the apology is a blanket apology.

“He is not admitting guilt of a crime. He is admitting the fault as the head of entities, not being able to notice, and unknowingly allowing the situation to happen. So that is his apology,” Haniff said when contacted today.

The sub judice rule relates to limiting comment and disclosure relating to judicial proceedings, in order not to prejudge the issue.

Yesterday, in a statement read by his son Nizar at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, Najib apologised for the 1MDB scandal occurring under his leadership but maintained his claim of innocence.

Najib also referenced a recent article by The Edge, which outlined how fugitive financier Low Taek Jho (Jho Low) and PetroSaudi executives Patrick Mahoney and Tarek Obaid conspired to embezzle 1MDB funds.

‘Only sub judice if raised in court’

Elaborating, Haniff remarked that Najib’s apology aligns with his statements during the SRC trial and that he is within his rights to refer to the PetroSaudi officers’ case in Switzerland as part of his statement.

“One would say, can’t he raise the PetroSaudi decision in court? Now, it’s (the case) already a different stage.

“For him to actually refer to the PetroSaudi case, you can’t just refer to the decision. You have to, legally speaking, bring the court proceedings of Switzerland,” he said.

Instead of questioning whether Najib’s statement constitutes sub judice, Haniff suggested focusing on whether Najib can introduce the PetroSaudi case in the 1MDB trial.

“If legally he can’t, then it’s not sub judice.

“It is the same with The Edge’s analysis. It was an opinion by the journalist or maybe through other sources. Opinions don’t help as evidence in court. So Najib has the right to refer to the comment in a statement outside the court,” he said.

Don’t jump the gun, let the prosecution decide

Najib, who is currently serving a six-year jail sentence and facing additional 1MDB-related charges, claimed The Edge’s article supports his assertion that he was deceived.

However, the article did not fully exonerate him. The article concluded that Najib was unaware of the theft of 1MDB funds, but only up to 2010 at least, and regarding the theft of US$1.5 billion from bonds raised in 2009.

The article did not conclude whether or not Najib remained in the dark later on.

Haniff pointed out that The Edge, by analysing the case before its conclusion, had opened the door for Najib’s remarks.

He then left the question of interference to the prosecution.

“We await for the prosecution to file the contempt proceedings and for the court to determine whether it’s contemptuous or not.

“But for the public, you, me, and others, so many of them who suddenly jumped out of the chair to make this comment, must understand that the legal process is fair.

“Until they (the prosecution) decide, it is not fair for any public members to say Najib was wrong to make the statement. In fact, I would say he is within his legal right to make that statement,” he concluded.

Anwar welcomes Najib's apology

COMMENT | Why Najib remains culpable for 1MDB despite apology

COMMENT | Najib's insincere apology

COMMENT | Najib's apology might be precursor to house arrest

Najib apologises over 1MDB debacle, but maintains innocence