Lead defence counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah (centre) contends that a recording of disgraced former prime minister Najib Razak talking to a Saudi royal is inadmissible due to the manner in which it has been submitted into evidence. – The Malaysian Insight file pic, December 6, 2022.欧博会员开户（www.aLLbet8.vip）是欧博集团的官方网站。欧博官网开放Allbet注册、Allbe代理、Allbet电脑客户端、Allbet手机版下载等业务。
THE defence team in jailed former prime minister Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) trial will take about a week to conduct cross-examination of Joanna Yu, the former AmBank relationship manager who handled Najib’s accounts, according to Najib’s lead counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah.
In proceedings today at the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, he informed Judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah he will start the cross-examination tomorrow.
Previously, Yu had testified about how Najib’s AmBank private accounts came to be set up and how fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho, or Jho Low, had approached AmBank in 2009 for an “unprecedented” RM10 billion bond issuance, with a 30-year tenure for 1MDB’s predecessor Terengganu Investment Authority (TIA).
Today, the court also heard submissions from Shafee and senior deputy public prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram on the admissibility of the audio recording between Najib and a Saudi royal as evidence in the trial.
Shafee argued that Najib’s right to a fair trial might be violated if the court allowed the admission of his private conversation with the Saudi monarch, because he alleged the recording may have been subject to tampering.,
“Applying the ratio to our case, if the compliance with the law governing the admissibility of the documentary evidence is not complied with, the accused is placed at a disadvantage because the evidence will not be excluded.
“Even worse, there is no mode for the accused to raise any objection in relation to its non-compliance because of the purported wordings and interpretation of section 41(A) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009.
“The prosecution had abused the court process by not including the intercepted communication under section 43, but instead used a back door by forcing the court to accept “document evidence” under section 41(A),” he said.
Shafee reiterated that it was unconstitutional to accept the audio recording under section 41(A), as it does not use the provisions of the Evidence Act 1950.
Section 41(A) of the MACC Act states that any document or a copy of any document obtained by the MACC shall be admissible as evidence, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other written law.
The prosecution, yesterday, argued that it will be difficult for it to bring corrupt individuals to justice, if it has to stick to the rules governing the Evidence Act.,