Is it wishful thinking, a wild fantasy—or just an afterthought?
Listen, everyone! Najib Razak could be acquitted if fugitive financier Jho Low—the central figure in the multibillion-ringgit 1MDB saga—is brought back to Malaysia and forced to take the stand.
Well, that seemed to be the bold claim made recently by the incarcerated ex-PM’s lead defense counsel, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, during a talk show hosted by the popular digital news portal SCOOP.
According to the much-sought-after, prominent lawyer, confronting Jho Low in court would expose "many things," potentially enabling Najib to walk free.
But hang on a minute…
Is the public being told that the outcome of one of the biggest kleptocracy scandals in world history could actually depend on what a fugitive businessman may say?
This might prompt some to ask: what about all those years of painstaking investigative work carried out by dedicated investigators and the courts?
In truth, Shafee’s question may have its merits: why has only Najib been pursued while Jho Low and other key figures allegedly escaped legal consequences?
But what if Jho Low is brought back—only for his testimony to reaffirm what the courts have already established? Then what?
Furthermore, although Najib sat at the top of the 1MDB hierarchy, his lawyer argued that the sovereign fund could not have been run by him from the "top down" because no company operates that way.
Then again, was 1MDB ever just another ordinary company?
Wasn't it the nation's sovereign wealth fund?
Shafee even questioned why others connected to 1MDB did not face criminal charges despite alleged involvement.
But would the alleged wrongdoing of his subordinates automatically absolve the man at the very top of all responsibility—or lessen his guilt?
In any organization, doesn't the buck stop with the man at the apex?
After all, the courts did repeatedly prove that Najib wasn't a passive observer. He was the number one leader in the country—the Prime Minister—as well as the Finance Minister.
Crucially, he was also the Chairman of 1MDB’s Board of Advisors.
Add to that, he was reportedly the controller of Minister of Finance Incorporated (MOF Inc) and the sole shareholder of 1MDB.
All those lofty positions carried immense authority—and responsibility!
As such, to suggest that a man wielding such powers over the country's coffers—and a smart, well-educated one at that—was merely a naive observer misled by subordinates, doesn't that sound absurd?
As if that were not enough, Shafee also trained his guns at the legal process, especially on the treatment of evidence, complaining that “double hearsay” and statements attributed to the absent Jho Low were admitted by the court.
Is justice decided inside a court of law based on admissible evidence, or is it decided based on hypotheses in “talk shows”—over a hot cup of coffee?
As it stands, Najib has already been tried and convicted beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law in the SRC International case by the top judges in the land.
(Source: Screenshot of news headline and image from Aliran)
He was also convicted by the High Court in the 1MDB trial for abusing his position and laundering billions in 1MDB funds.
So is it not for the appellate courts to decide next whether his conviction stands or falls—rather than relying on what Jho Low might say if he were ever forced to testify from the dock?
At the end of the day, what matters is that it has been proven billions of ringgit were siphoned off from the nation in a complex web of shameless plundering.
Yet, despite carefully worded apologies, the public still awaits full accountability and a genuine remorse.
In hindsight, why didn't Najib, with the help of his hotshot lawyers, go all out to haul back Jho Low and others to stand trial when as prime minister he held the levers of power in the country?
Instead, those who had questioned him on the scandal back then—including his own Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney General—were sacked. Why?
(Source Image: Screenshot of news headline and image from South China Morning Post in 2015)
The thing is, after the courts have long established that millions flowed into one’s personal accounts, can one simply continue to point fingers at another person and claim total ignorance?
Even the ordinary man on the street knows that ignorance is no excuse under the law!
As it stands, the country’s highest court has already affirmed Najib's SRC guilty verdict, while the High Court has handed down his 1MDB conviction.
Found guilty not once—but twice!
Pardoned not once, but twice: first having his prison sentence halved, and more recently granted conditional house arrest.
In light of all that, won't suggesting that a person’s innocence hinges on another’s testimony be perceived by critics as a familiar diversionary tactic—where the spotlight is shifted to a bogeyman in the hope that past guilt can be whitewashed?
Main information source: SCOOP
JK Joseph (jtkingsworld@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.
