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
Najibās 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 Najibās 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.
