PENANG deputy chief minister II Dr P. Ramasamy said he does not think selective prosecution was made against former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, and neither was there a miscarriage of justice.
The DAP lawmaker was responding to the Datuk Zaid Ibrahim-penned “There is no Merdeka from the 1MDB scandal” op-ed yesterday (Aug 31) where the lawyer expressed his sadness that Najib did not get a fair trial and that “justice was denied to him”.
“While Zaid is entitled to his opinion – however indefensible it is – I need to take umbrage to his central argument that Najib did not get a fair trial and that there was a miscarriage of justice,” Ramasamy said.
He said for Zaid, Najib’s generosity to the poor was branded bribery of the populace, while his 1Malaysia model was pushed back by the right-wing thinking of Mahathirism in UMNO.
“[However] I don’t think that there was selective prosecution against Najib and neither was there a terrible miscarriage of justice against him,” the Perai assemblyperson opined.
“Najib got what he deserved. It was not a political decision but a decision made by the highest court in the country and his conviction was unanimously declared by the Federal Court.
“The fact that others have been arrested and charged is poor defence of Najib’s ‘selective prosecution’ and whether Zaid accepts it or not Najib as the former prime minister was the key figure in the embezzlement of funds belonging to 1MDB.”
Ramasamy further noted that whether Zaid accepts it or not, Najib as the former prime minister was the “key figure” in the embezzlement of 1MDB funds and that “without his approval or consent there was no way others could have been involved”.
“I don’t think that the book on the prosecution of the 1MDB case has been closed as alleged by Zaid as it is just a matter of time before the long arm of the law reaches them,” he reckoned.
Referring to Zaid’s opinion that Najib did not get a fair trial, Ramasamy said, “He (Zaid) might have been the last-minute lawyer but he had to have followed the case very closely from the start so how can he say that justice was denied as the case had to pass through three judicial stages before his client was convicted?
“Najib was convicted by the High court and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and later reaffirmed by the Federal Court. Isn’t this a fair process? What else is expected of the Federal Court, other than freeing Najib?”
“Poor and pathetic defence of Najib”
Ramasamy went on to stress that if the Federal Court could affirm Najib’s conviction unanimously then this “speaks volumes of the veracity of facts” before the final judgement could be made.
He pointed out that Zaid cannot plead innocence as he was “part and parcel of the entire drama staged by Najib and his team in adducing new evidence, withdrawing legal representation and attempting to recuse Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.
“Were these unsuccessful attempts made to correct the concept of ‘miscarriage’ of justice? After all, they made a mockery of the judicial system that was meant to ensure checks and balances,” he remarked.
“What is so special about Najib other than the fact he was the former prime minister and the son of the country’s second prime minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein?
“Is there anything in the law or in the manner of prosecution that stipulates that he should have been treated differently?”
While Ramasamy acknowledged that it is well and good to talk about the spirit of Merdeka he noted that as Zaid knows the spirit and substance of Merdeka cannot be addressed if Malaysians are not unanimous in fighting the scourge of corruption especially those in high places.
“It serves no purpose to imprison a poor hungry person for stealing a piece of chicken while those robbing and maiming the country of billions are let loose to plunder the country again and again,” he argued.
“Zaid’s invocation of the spirit of Merdeka is a poor and pathetic defence of Najib – he sounds like a ‘wounded lawyer’.” – Sept 1, 2022
