MP SPEAKS | Some Umno leaders led by president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi try to portray that former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak was not accorded a fair trial and a fair judicial process with regard to the SRC International-related charges against him.

This is far from the truth. The following explanations will help us to see that Najib was given a fair trial and a fair judicial process.

Judicial decisions based on facts and evidence

Judges make decisions based on facts and evidence adduced in court.

If the facts and evidence adduced showed that an offence has been committed, then judges must pronounce a conviction and if the facts and evidence adduced do not show an offence committed then they must pronounce an acquittal. Any other matters are extraneous or irrelevant.

The prosecutor and the defence lawyers are there only to assist the court.

The judges do not decide based on the dramas put up by the prosecution or the defence, nor do they decide based on how good a lawyer you have engaged.

All nine judges namely the High Court judge, the three Court of Appeal judges and the five Federal Court judges have unanimously found Najib guilty based on facts and evidence adduced in court.

Was Najib denied justice when his bid to adduce fresh evidence failed?

The evidence that Najib sought to introduce, ie that the trial judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali was employed as Maybank group general counsel and company secretary between 2006 and 2015, was not relevant.

Even if this evidence is admitted, it does not in any way affect the facts and evidence adduced in court that Najib was guilty of the offences.

Therefore, the rejection of the application to adduce fresh evidence did no injustice to Najib.

Was Najib denied justice when postponements were not granted?

The public must know how the appellate courts like the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court function. Many straightforward cases are disposed of within a few minutes while others are given a little more time, rarely more than one day.

Does the quick disposal of cases at the appellate courts mean that injustice was done? No.

This is because the judges of the appellate courts have read through the record of appeal which contains the facts and evidence adduced at the trial court, the oral and written submissions of the parties, the grounds of judgment of the trial judge and also the grounds of appeal of the appellant.

The judges of the appellate courts have spent many hours on the case before the hearing of the appeal before them.

They have the full picture of the case, the arguments advanced by the parties, the grounds on which the trial judge came to his decision and the reasons the appellant is unhappy with the decision.

The role of the judges at the appellate courts is to see if the trial judge has erred or made any mistake in his/her judgment.

With the decades of experience and the wealth of legal knowledge that they have, the appellate court judges are ready to decide after reading the record of appeal.

The hearing date of the appeal is to give the parties a final opportunity to try to reverse the preliminary decisions the appellate court judges have formed in their minds.

Unless a party can successfully persuade them to change their minds, their preliminary decisions stay.

This explains why judges of the appellate courts need only a few minutes to dispose of a case.

Najib forwarded 94 grounds of appeal for the Federal Court judges to consider. Their preliminary findings were that they are without basis.

Since Najib’s lawyers decided not to submit further, the Federal Court judges confirmed their preliminary decisions and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on Najib.

Leaked draft Federal Court judgment

Zahid has implied that the Federal Court judges were unfair to Najib in that they returned a guilty verdict on Najib before the hearing of the appeal.

As explained above, the draft Federal Court judgment was a preliminary decision of appellate court judges after reading the record of appeal.

While the leakage of the draft judgment must be condemned, it shows that Najib’s case was dealt with by a bench of hard-working and conscientious judges who exercised their minds to his case.

However, the Federal Court judges found the facts and evidence adduced in court pointed to his guilt.

Apex court gave 9 days to hear the appeal

As stated above, often cases at the appellate courts are disposed of within a few minutes.

The Federal Court has however, accorded Najib nine days to hear his appeal. This is probably the longest period granted by the Federal Court to an appellant in history.

How can Najib or Umno accuse the Federal Court of being unfair to him?

No one should doubt that Najib was accorded a fair trial and a fair judicial process.

NGEH KOO HAM is Beruas MP and DAP MPs' spokesperson on law and Parliament.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.