Najib should take cue from judge, return RM42m to SRC International

Judge in Najib’s case transferred back to civil court.

Verdict by judge in Najib case allegedly marred by personal remarks, not confined to issues in conflict.

Court must not only be fair but be seen to be fair.

Najib should take cue from judge, return RM42m to SRC International.

He can send letter of representation to AG, throw himself at the mercy of the court.

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/560099

The judge was allegedly very personal with the accused and lawyer because they allegedly insulted him.

The Judge, under our adversarial system of justice, is a Referee.

That may have marred the verdict.

The judge in fact does not decide. The court can only rule on the basis of submissions by both sides. The judge cannot go off at a tangent, oblivious to the submissions.

Anyone can go to court on anything and say anything. The judge can’t interfere. He’s not supposed to advise the parties in dispute and guide them unless it involves those not admitted to the High Court and Appearing in Person.

Having said that, a court knows what to disregard. If a court does not disregard what should be disregarded, the parties in dispute may be in trouble.

Najib and lawyer said many things which only injured their case. These should have been disregarded since they are not about the issues in conflict between the parties in dispute. Instead, the judge allegedly used the material which should have been disregarded, against the accused.

Apparently, the judge was going here, there, and all over the place in the verdict.

Patently, that may be no way for a case to be decided.

Najib’s lawyer may have been worse than useless. He may have made up many stories and also appeared to go along with his Client making up stories.

It was unnecessary to talk about the RM2.6b, the Saudi King and Jho Low. These are clearly fairy tales. Why bring them to the court’s attention and compromise the verdict?

One good point the judge made was to note that Najib didn’t return the RM42m. Najib should take the cue from this, return the money and send a letter of representation to the AG.

He should throw himself at the mercy of the court.

If the Court of Appeal rules a mistrial, he’s lucky.

He should not think the superior court will confine itself to the issues in conflict and disregard what should have been disregarded.

The issues in conflict:

Was the transfer of RM42m from SRC to Najib’s personal account wrong in law?

Did he have a duty to enquire where the RM42m in his personal account came from?

What’s the legal implications of giving PA to his personal account to others?

Did he direct the transfer of RM42m to his personal account?

If so, was it tantamount to abuse of power, conflict of interest and criminal breach of trust?

Was the RM42m evidence of deriving personal gain and personal benefits i.e. the definition of bribery and corruption?

Did he spend any of the RM42m and, if so, was he party to illegalities?

Was spending the RM42m, allegedly on corporate social responsibilities, above board in law?

Was the SRC RM42m covered by prerogative and discretionary powers of gov’t, the Executive and management?

FOOTNOTE: I may be ventilating my ignorance in the above piece. If so, I stand corrected.

Keeping things in perspective . . . it all began here.

The Holy Bible, the Word of God, and the Constitution are about regulating human relationships.

The Constitution is about the relationship between a state and a people, between the state and individuals, and between individuals.

The basis of this relationship is compensation and punishment, obligations, responsibilities and duties.

The rule of law is the basis of the Constitution.

The court is only about law. It’s about issues in conflict between parties in dispute and obligations, responsibilities and duties.

The court can bring closure.

The court is not about ethics, moral values, theology, sin, God, justice or truth (not a reference to the spiritual nature of truth) although those in court swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth — “so help me God” — on the evidence that they are about to give i.e. Sworn Oaths.

The mark of a great advocate is a great personality, the ability to detect that one real point that matters in a case, and the power to examine.

Great advocates can think like the judge and write like a journalist.

The work of a lawyer is to look for the law and point it out to the court.

The work of the court is to find the law.

Great advocates can come up with novel developments in law for the court to declare novel developments in law.

Law exists, and has always existed, based on common sense, universal values and the principles of natural justice.

According to jurisprudence, God is not a source in law.

Law must have source to have jurisdiction, authority and power.

The court is about the spiritual nature of truth as evident in the Holy Bible, the Word of God.

Word of God refers to eternal laws on eternal truths. These have a spiritual nature.

The Holy Bible, the Word of God, is about the relationship between God and a people, between God and individuals and between individuals.

The basis of this relationship is love and forgiveness, obligations, responsibilities and duties.

Only God can forgive sins.

God has said that our sins can only be forgiven if we first forgive those who transgressed against us, seek forgiveness from those against whom we have transgressed, and we forgive ourselves.

God will forgive our sins.

We will enter a state of grace.

Miracles happen when we are in a state of grace i.e. sin-free.

It’s about keeping the conscience clear.

It’s the guilty conscience that kills.

Hinduism and Sanatana (science) dharma (duties) are not one and the same thing. Sanatana dharma may be about eternal laws on eternal truths.

Author: fernzthegreat

Joe Fernandez holds a honours degree in management, majoring in economics, and has opted from academia in law to being a jurist. He was trained professionally on the job as a journalist. He's a longtime Borneo watcher, keen on the history and legal aspects of Malaya's presence in Sabah and Sarawak. He teaches the English language privately and has emerged as a subject matter expert in public examination techniques.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: