Getting a pardon is not like preparing instant noodles. It does not come instantaneously. Those clamouring for it have to look at past cases of the late former Selangor menteri besar Harun Idris, the late former youth and sports minister Mokhtar Hashim, and the more recent case of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.

Yesterday, the tempo reached a crescendo, with many “explaining” the legalities which led to Najib’s conviction.

Muhammed Shafee Abdullah, who was Najib’s lead defence counsel before he was discharged at the Federal Court, continued the saga of the Arab donation which was already demolished as a concoction of lies.

The Court of Appeal judges who upheld Najib’s conviction when his appeal came before their bench, lead judge Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil, Has Zanah Mehat, and Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, said Najib’s claims of the Arab donations were “unbelievable”.

Judge Karim noted: “On the defence of the Arab donations, as alluded earlier, we agree with the learned trial judge that the Arab donation story is nothing more than a concoction that is completely bereft of any credibility.

“There is no evidence at all that the RM42 million came from, or could have come from the Saudi royal family, nor is there any reasonable basis for the appellant to have formed that belief.”

Was Shafee flogging a dead horse? As a layman, one has to ask: If the Arab ruler intended to donate, why would the money come in a circuitous route before ending up in a Singapore bank before ending up in Najib’s account? Wouldn’t the money have been transferred directly from Riyadh to Kuala Lumpur?

Bordering sedition

Also, yesterday, a slew of politicians took to the stage. Umno president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who had previously declared that the Federal Court’s decision to reject Najib’s application to adduce fresh evidence could “erode the integrity of the judiciary”, advanced a new “outcome”.

His newfound unfounded theory took another step – this time saying that the SRC International case will soon be referenced by Commonwealth nations as an unfair trial.

How did he arrive at such a conclusion? But then, when you are talking to your party members who are not well-versed with the judicial procedures, anything goes.

Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat and Court of Appeal judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, the latter of whom presided over Najib’s at the High Court and found him guilty, bore the brunt of unwarranted attacks.

Some of the utterances cannot be repeated because they bordered on breaching the Sedition Act.

Sections 2 and 3(1) of the Sedition Act state that any act, speech, words or publication is seditious if they have a tendency towards any of the following, including bringing into hatred or contempt the administration of justice in the country.

Surely, the police who are quick to arrest Ahmad, Ah Chong, and Muthu at the drop of a hat when seditious words are spoken, have suddenly tied their hands themselves.

Lest I am accused of claiming the police are biased, let’s ask if politicians like PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang, Zahid, and others can go on inciting hatred among the people. Have they been given carte blanche to say anything and everything?

Anyway, folks, Happy Merdeka.