KUALA LUMPUR: Jailed Malaysian former prime minister Najib Razak will have to wait until Jun 5 to know whether he can proceed with his bid to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest, after the High Court fixed the date during a hearing on Wednesday (Apr 17) that was closed to the public and press.
Najib, imprisoned since Aug 23, 2022, for corruption offences, is trying to compel the government to produce an addendum order reportedly issued by Malaysia’s former king Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah of Pahang that allows him to serve the rest of his sentence at home.
Najib’s lawyers have produced an affidavit by a “crucial” witness as a cornerstone of their case, saying that this document supports Najib’s claim about the existence of such an addendum.
At the start of the Wednesday hearing, Najib’s lawyers requested for the case to be heard in chambers – meaning not open to the public or the press – due to “certain material” disclosed in the latest affidavit that is “apparently sensitive”, adding that the government’s lawyers agreed with this request as well.
Justice Amarjeet Singh granted the request but said he will present his decision in open court.
CNA has seen the affidavit dated as filed on Apr 9, signed by Malaysia Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi. It was publicly accessible via the court website as of 11am on Wednesday.
But Najib’s lawyer Shafee Abdullah told media after the hearing that Justice Singh had issued an order to “seal” the affidavit. “If you got it in a leaking format, you take the risk,” he said.
When CNA pointed out that the affidavit was publicly accessible, Mr Shafee insisted that the court had “just ordered that it cannot be used”.
Several Malaysian news outlets have reported on the affidavit, naming Mr Ahmad Zahid, who is also president of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), and going into the contents of the document.
CNA contacted senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan, representing the Attorney-General in this case, to confirm if a sealing order had been issued.
Mr Shamsul said he was “not sure” if such an order was given, saying that this was an issue that needed to be checked with the court. He only noted that the court had asked Mr Shafee to apply for the order.
When contacted by CNA, a court interpreter who handled Wednesday’s hearing said she was not authorised to disclose “confidential” court matters, and asked to contact counsel instead.
