Najib Fails In His Bid To Introduce New Evidence For Retrial In RM42 Million SRC Case
Additionally, Najib's application to postpone the hearing of the appeal for at least four months was also rejected. Proceedings will now resume on Thursday.
By Sadho Ram — 16 Aug 2022, 02:54 PM — Updated over 2 years ago
Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has failed in his bid to adduce fresh evidence in his RM42 million SRC International trial
Earlier today, 16 August, Federal Court Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat ruled that there is no basis to suggest that Judge Datuk Nazlan Mohd Ghazali's former job at Maybank showed a conflict of interest or bias in his judgement against Najib in relation to the SRC International trial.
The five-person Federal Court bench, which was chaired by Tengku Maimun, was unanimous in rejecting Najib's application, ruling that the application did not fulfil the requirements of the law.
Najib's lawyer had asked the court to admit evidence allegedly showing that judge Nazlan had a conflict of interest due to his previous employment at Maybank, which had provided a loan to 1MDB
According to Free Malaysia Today, Najib's lawyer contended in his application that judge Nazlan should have recused himself from presiding over the SRC trial due to the alleged conflict of interest.
The lawyer argued that the judge was allegedly involved in deliberations and decision-making in the lead-up to the formation of SRC as a 1MDB subsidiary and the grant of loan and credit facilities.
Meanwhile, Najib's lawyer then applied for the Federal Court to postpone the main SRC appeal hearing for three to four months
Chief Justice Tengku Maimun, who initially ordered the proceedings to temporarily stand down, rejected the appeal to postpone the hearing. Proceedings will now resume on Thursday, 18 August.
She said Najib's lawyer's application to postpone the hearing by three to four months just because they were not ready to proceed was unacceptable to the court.
"To put it bluntly, the defence seeks an adjournment of these appeals for the simple reason that they are not prepared. However, the fixing of the dates of this appeal has been known from as far back as the case management in April, which is some four months ago. Parties were then advised that the Court would proceed on the dates fixed," she said, as reported by New Straits Times.
