Najib Razak vows to fight guilty verdict on corruption

Former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak has vowed to fight Tuesday’s guilty verdict and 12-year prison sentence.

Malaysia's former prime minister Najib Razak waves as he leaves court on Tuesday after he was found guilty in his corruption trial in Kuala Lumpur. Picture: AFP

Former Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak — now a convicted graft felon — has vowed to fight Tuesday’s guilty verdict and 12-year prison sentence to the country’s highest Federal Court, describing the ruling as “definitely not the end of the world”.

Najib said in a late-night press conference on Tuesday after he was granted bail; “I am very disappointed by this decision … I will continue efforts to clear my name.

“This is definitely not the end of the world. There is a process of appeal (and) we hope that we will be successful then.”

High Court judge Mohamad Nazlan Gazali found the ex-premier guilty on all seven charges of abuse of power, criminal breach of trust and money laundering over the transfer of RM42 million ($13.8m) from SRC International — a subsidiary of the 1MDB state development fund — into his ­accounts and sentenced him to 72 years’ jail, to be served concurrently. He also fined him $69m.

Najib’s government suffered a shock election defeat in May 2018 over public anger at the misappropriation of $US4.5bn from 1MDB, and allegations he personally ­received $US1bn in 1MDB funds. He faces at least three more 1MDB-related corruption trials.

Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim said on Wednesday the verdict provided “renewed hope” to Malaysians, many of whom were angry over the collapse of his Pakatan Harapan government in February.

“At least they believe now that the climate for change and, finally, the voice of the people must be heard,” Mr Anwar told CNBC.

Najib’s lead defence lawyer, Shafee Abdullah, has said he is confident the verdict will be overturned on appeal, and that “there is no evidence to show Najib was the one who instructed the RM42 million be credited into his account”.

“This is only one judge. There are 10 more to go. Three judges from the Court of Appeal and seven from the Federal Court,” he said.

Some analysts too have warned any celebration of Najib’s conviction is premature, given the precedent for politically sensitive cases in Malaysia to be overturned on appeal.

While Najib is disqualified from running as an election candidate during his appeal, he remains a key player in the UMNO party that props up Prime Minister ­Muhyiddin Yassin ’s government.

However, Malaysian legal ­experts said the judgment would be extremely difficult to overturn, and that appointments to the bench made during the reformist Pakatan Harapan government’s 22 months in power had strengthened the judiciary’s independence.

Lim Chee Wee, former Malaysian Bar Council president and ex-member of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission review board, said Judge Nazlan’s comprehensive judgment would be “almost impossible — if not impossible — to challenge on appeal”.

“I have complete confidence in our Malaysian judiciary to remain independent, impartial and strong to resist any interference by outsiders,” he said.

Former law minister VK Liew said the only possible grounds for overturning the conviction would be if the defence could prove an error in law. “We will have to wait for the defence Memorandum of Appeal (which must be lodged within 30 days) to see roughly where they’re going with it,” he said.

“It will be very, very difficult for Najib to win in the appellate court in this particular case.”

Najib would also have to serve at least part of his sentence before a royal pardon could even be considered, he added.

But Yvonne Tew, an associate law professor at Georgetown University Law Centre, said a royal pardon coming on the heels of a conviction would “raise questions of legitimacy and rule of law concerns in a system based on the idea that all are equal under the law”. 

The verdict was an “important ­indication of the court’s willingness to assert judicial authority and independence in the face of dominant political power”. “It will be difficult for an appeal court to overturn the High Court’s findings on the facts or the law with any credibility after the court’s conclusive — and damning — ruling,” she said.