M’sian High Court grants DNAA to ex-PM Najib in RM6.6B 1MDB-linked charges

Section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) mandates that the prosecution must provide the accused with specific documents prior to the commencement of a trial.

Najib and Irwan Face Allegations of Misusing RM6.6B Govt Funds to Settle 1MDB Debts

Najib and Irwan are accused of six counts of criminal breach of trust involving over RM6.6 billion in government funds.

These funds, initially earmarked for development projects, were allegedly misappropriated and diverted to the Abu Dhabi state fund, IPIC, to settle 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) debts.

The debate surrounding the DNAA arose from significant delays in the trial, attributed to the prosecution’s failure to hand over hundreds of crucial documents required by the defence to prepare their case. This situation prompted the defence to file two prior applications for a DNAA.

Although Najib were charged in 2018, the trial remains stalled after six years.

In 2024 alone, proceedings have been postponed three times since June to allow the prosecution to organise and declassify documents, some of which are considered classified.

Defence Claims Key Documents Missing, Prosecution Acknowledges Delays in Declassification

The defence has argued that critical documents, including Finance Ministry memos to the Minister of Finance Inc (MOF Inc), Cabinet meeting records, and various letters and emails, are essential for building their case.

They claim that 156 documents referenced in witness statements and an additional 59 documents cited by Irwan in his Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission statement have not been provided, despite repeated requests.

During Monday’s proceedings, Deputy Public Prosecutor Muhammad Saifuddin Hashim Musaimi acknowledged that around 40 documents were still awaiting declassification.

He clarified that the prosecution lacked authority over declassification under the Official Secrets Act.

On Wednesday, the court heard submissions on whether it could independently grant a DNAA to the two accused.

Judge Muhammad Jamil explained that the law permits a DNAA under three scenarios: during a summary trial, in the applicant’s absence, or upon the prosecution’s request.

None of these circumstances applied, as the prosecution had explicitly stated it did not seek a DNAA.

Najib’s lawyer, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, and Irwan’s counsel, Datuk K Kumaraendran, argued that the prolonged delays amounted to an abuse of the court process. They urged the court to use its inherent power to halt such practices.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Muhammad Saifuddin concurred that the court holds inherent powers, as affirmed in case law. He also noted that the prosecution had handed over substantial volumes of documents to the defence but left the final decision on the DNAA to the court.