Friday 29 Mar 2024
By
main news image

This article first appeared in The Edge Financial Daily on February 25, 2020

KUALA LUMPUR: Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s defence will not be calling a document expert witness to testify on his examination of 13 contemporaneous documents at the SRC International Sdn Bhd trial.

Last month, Najib’s defence led by Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah made an application before Justice Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali to allow a Dr Steven Strach from Australia to verify the documents which contain Najib’s signatures, and to be called as an expert witness.

The judge allowed the application.

Najib, during the course of the trial, has maintained that he could not be sure if the signatures on the documents are his or are forgeries.

Appointed prosecutor Datuk V Sithambaram informed Justice Mohd Nazlan that the defence will not be calling Strach to testify.

Muhammad Shafee and his team also confirmed this to the judge during proceedings yesterday.

Muhammad Shafee did not specify the reason for not using Strach’s analysis and for putting him on the stand during proceedings but a letter sighted by The Edge Financial Daily from Messrs Shafee & Co to Justice Mohd Nazlan’s chambers indicated that there was an issue with the expert’s appointment.

“As we have previously informed the court on 17/2/2020, an impasse has arisen relating to the terms of [Strach’s] appointment and as a result we are unable to proceed further with his appointment,” the letter reads.

Strach had been allowed by the court to examine the documents on Feb 11 and 12.

“To date we have not been provided with any report or findings by [Strach], from his examination... apart from his preliminary report,” the letter stated.

“We therefore will not be calling [Strach] to testify,”

The letter stated that the defence will address the issues when the defence stage of the case wraps up and each party has to provide submissions to the judge.

Among the documents in question are the company minutes of 1Malaysia Development Bhd — then the parent company of SRC — and a letter dated Dec 24, 2014, relating to transfer instructions by SRC.

Justice Mohd Nazlan, in his ruling, said an accused is entitled to procure and lead relevant evidence of his choice.

“Furthermore, it is settled law that even if a defence is not put to the prosecution witness, the court is still bound to consider the defence, however weak. Even if the basis for this application is an afterthought or an invention by the accused, it is not a valid reason to bar him from leading evidence in his defence.”

Nevertheless, the judge said the weight to be given to the expert evidence — should it be tendered — including whether the credibility of the defence of the accused is adversely affected by any afterthought, is for the court to decide.

“The evidentiary value of the intended evidence [from Najib’s expert evidence] is an issue to be determined at the end of this case. This would ensure that the best evidence on the authenticity of the disputed documents is made available,” said Justice Mohd Nazlan when allowing the application.

      Print
      Text Size
      Share