OPINION: On Thursday, former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak conceded in the Kuala Lumpur High Court that the RM42 million deposited into his personal bank accounts was unrelated to any Saudi donation.
He made this admission under cross-examination by SRC International Sdn Bhd’s counsel, Kwan Will Sen, in the RM42 million civil suit filed against him by SRC and its subsidiary, Gandingan Mentari Sdn Bhd.
This exchange took place between counsel and the defendant in the presence of Najib’s counsel, Farhan Shafee:
Kwan: This particular defence of the Saudi donation was dismissed by all levels of the courts (in the SRC International corruption case). Is that a correct statement?
Najib: Yes, but I have to clarify because I didn’t have the opportunity to do a full explanation at the Federal Court. That’s why in the review, one of the judges – a senior judge – agreed with our position. During the review, he concluded I didn’t get a fair trial.
Kwan: All said and done, the majority finding upheld the conclusion (that the funds were not a Saudi donation). That is correct, isn’t it?
Najib: Yes. Unfortunately, yes.
Kwan: In the 1MDB trial at the High Court – and I know you have appealed against that decision – Justice Collin (Lawrence Sequerah) also made the same finding, didn’t he?
Najib: Yes.
Najib: At that particular time, I thought it was a Saudi donation.
Kwan: The truth in your mind – if I can use those words – at this moment, is that the RM42 million has nothing to do with the Saudi donation?
Najib: Based on subsequent knowledge, yes.
Kwan: So, you agree with my statement?
Najib: Yes.
Yesterday, his defence counsel, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, “clarified” that there may have been an accidental misconception of what transpired in court.
"To him, till today, [he has maintained that] the whole [sum of] money was [Arab] donations," he said, adding that his client has never abandoned this stance from the start.
Really? But didn’t he admit a day earlier that the RM42 million deposited into his personal bank accounts was not related to any Saudi donation?
Shafee said there could have been an accidental misunderstanding as to how a witness's answer is derived in civil proceedings.
"When you cross-examine, you will have to accommodate in order to answer the question [put to him]. But [Najib] has never abandoned his stance," Shafee said.
But didn’t Najib say “yes” to the question posed by Kwan?
But the question is: Can what has been said be “unsaid’?
But shouldn’t this clarification be made in court when the counsel re-examined his client -- not at a press conference?
The defence’s dance of “clarification” outside the court is less a legal strategy than a linguistic contortion act, performed with the grace of a gymnast twisting mid‑air to avoid a hard landing.
We are asked to believe that “yes” does not mean “yes,” that admissions can be retrofitted into denials, and that inconvenient truths can be rebranded as “misconceptions.”
There have been incidents where words can be bent, stretched, and reshaped until they lose all meaning, but what is said in court remains on record.
The courtroom is not a circus ring for verbal acrobatics. It is a place where words matter -- where each syllable carries the weight of accountability. Once spoken, they cannot be stuffed back into the mouth like a boy swallowing stolen sweets to avoid punishment, nor erased with a lawyer’s words.
To attempt to “unsay” is to insult not only the intelligence of the court but the collective memory of the public, who followed the proceedings.
Najib’s “yes” was not a slip of the tongue -- it was a crack in the façade, a fissure that revealed what lies beneath the surface of denial.
And cracks, once visible, spread. No amount of counsel’s varnish, however thickly applied, can conceal the fact that the defendant himself acknowledged what he now wishes to deny. The attempt to paint over the fracture only makes it more conspicuous, more damning.
This episode is not merely about one man’s words -- it is about the integrity of the judicial process. If “yes” can be retroactively transformed into “no,” then testimony itself becomes meaningless, and truth becomes hostage to spin.
In the end, the question is not whether what has been said can be unsaid. It is whether we, as a society, will tolerate the erosion of meaning in our courts of law. The answer, unlike Najib’s, should be clear and unambiguous -- words matter, admissions matter, and justice cannot be built on the shifting sands of “clarification.”
In the theatre of justice, as Najib and his counsel through years of experience will understand, words are not props to be rearranged at will -- they are verdicts in themselves. And Najib’s ‘yes’ will echo far louder than any counsel’s attempt to unsay it.
Citizen Nades (citizen.nades22@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.