Should the SRC trial judge have disqualified himself due to past Maybank role?

Question

Accepted Answer

The SRC Trial Judge's Past Role at Maybank Could Have Warranted Disqualification

The lead defence lawyer for former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has claimed that the High Court judge who presided over the SRC International Sdn Bhd trial, Datuk Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali, should have recused himself due to his prior role at Maybank. This assertion stems from Nazlan's position as Maybank's company secretary and group general counsel in 2012, the same year the bank provided a RM4.17 billion loan to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) for the acquisition of Tanjong Energy Holdings Sdn Bhd (TEHSB). Najib's legal team plans to submit a new application to the Federal Court to present this information as part of Najib's ongoing appeal against his conviction and sentence in the SRC case.
Allegation of Undisclosed Conflict of Interest

Najib's lead defence counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, contends that Nazlan's previous responsibilities at Maybank, specifically his involvement in the RM4.17 billion loan to 1MDB, presented a potential conflict of interest. Shafee argued that Nazlan, having been privy to the company's dealings and the subsequent alleged siphoning of funds by Jho Low, might have formed pre-existing opinions about the loan's management. This, he claims, should have prompted Nazlan to disclose his past role and disqualify himself from presiding over a case involving SRC, a former subsidiary of 1MDB, to avoid any perception of bias.
Basis for the New Federal Court Application

The defence team has stated they newly discovered Nazlan's past employment at Maybank only days prior to making this claim. Consequently, they intend to file a separate application with the Federal Court to introduce this information as additional evidence in Najib's appeal. This application is distinct from an upcoming hearing concerning the addition of purported new evidence for the SRC appeal, indicating a strategic approach to incorporate this specific disclosure.
Judicial Obligation to Disclose Potential Conflicts

Tania Scivetti, another lawyer representing Najib, highlighted the general obligation for judges to reveal any potential conflicts of interest. She suggested that Nazlan had multiple opportunities to disclose his past role at Maybank, including when he was initially assigned to hear the SRC trial. The defence asserts that by not disclosing this prior professional engagement, Nazlan may have failed to meet this judicial standard.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Should the SRC trial judge have disqualified himself due to past Maybank role?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends