Najib Claims Limited Role in SRC, Denies Initiating Appointments in RM42m Suit
In a significant development in the ongoing RM42 million civil suit, former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak testified before the High Court ...
In a significant development in the ongoing RM42 million civil suit, former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak testified before the High Court in Kuala Lumpur on January 14, asserting that his involvement with SRC International Sdn Bhd was confined to granting approvals and exercising veto powers, rather than initiating appointments or amendments within the company. The 72-year-old former leader, who is the sole defendant in the case, made these statements during cross-examination by SRC counsel Kwan Will Sen, as the court delved into the intricacies of corporate governance and executive responsibility.
Najib emphasized that his role was strictly procedural, limited to approving board member appointments presented to him, without any involvement in proposing or selecting candidates. He referenced a letter dated August 1, 2011, which documented his approval for the appointments of Tan Sri Ismee Ismail, Datuk Suboh Yassin, Che Abdullah @ Rashidi Che Omar, Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi, and Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil as directors of SRC. According to Najib, this action was merely an exercise of his veto power under Article 67 of the SRC Memorandum and Articles of Association (M&A), and he did not initiate these appointments himself.
When questioned by Kwan about providing evidence to support his claim that he did not initiate the director appointments, Najib responded in the negative. He explained, "I cannot show you anything as such; however, I can testify that I did not know some of these individuals personally. They (management) have to source and name who they want (as the directors). I get to make the final call." He further noted that he was not familiar with Nik Faisal, but the management had recommended him due to his qualifications.
The cross-examination took a contentious turn when Kwan suggested that by approving all five directors, Najib effectively controlled the board. Najib firmly disagreed, arguing that the power to reject a proposal is distinct from making one. He elaborated that his position did not equate to directing SRC's affairs, insisting that management decisions were made independently by the company. This distinction is central to the legal arguments in the suit, which hinges on allegations of abuse of power and misfeasance.
The civil suit, filed in 2021 by SRC and its subsidiary Gandingan Mentari Sdn Bhd, seeks a declaration that Najib is liable for the receipt of RM42 million. The plaintiffs are also pursuing damages for knowing receipt, dishonest assistance, the tort of misfeasance, and abuse of power. Originally, the lawsuit included six other directors, but SRC later removed them, retaining Najib as the sole defendant. However, the High Court granted Najib permission to issue third-party notices against these individuals, including Tan Sri Ismee Ismail, Datuk Suboh Md Yassin, and Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi, potentially broadening the scope of accountability.
This case is part of a broader legal landscape involving Najib, who has faced multiple charges related to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal, with SRC being a former subsidiary. The RM42 million suit adds another layer to the complex web of allegations, focusing on corporate governance and the extent of executive oversight. Najib's testimony underscores his defense strategy: positioning himself as a figure who exercised limited, reactive powers rather than proactive control.
The hearing, presided over by Justice Datuk Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah Raja Mohzan, is set to continue on January 21, with further cross-examination expected to probe deeper into the specifics of Najib's role and the flow of funds. Legal experts anticipate that the outcome could have implications for corporate liability and the interpretation of executive powers in Malaysia, particularly in cases involving state-linked entities.
As the proceedings unfold, the case highlights ongoing debates about accountability in high-profile financial scandals. Najib's assertions of a limited role may challenge the plaintiffs' narrative of direct involvement, but the court will ultimately weigh the evidence to determine liability. The RM42 million suit not only seeks financial redress but also serves as a test of legal principles surrounding corporate misconduct and the responsibilities of public officials in business affairs.
In summary, Najib's testimony in the High Court paints a picture of a restrained executive role in SRC, centered on approval and veto powers rather than initiation. As the legal battle continues, it remains to be seen how the court will interpret these claims in the context of the broader allegations and the pursuit of justice in one of Malaysia's most closely watched financial cases.
