KUALA LUMPUR — June 14, 2016: Datuk Seri Najib Razak has stated that he had neither interfered in the legal process nor had used his position to ensure that ministries and departments did not conduct investigations on any wrongdoing allegedly committed by him.
He further submitted that he did not abuse his positions as prime minister, finance minister, Barisan Nasional (BN) chairman and Umno president to indulge in corrupt practices as alleged.
“As BN chairman and Umno president, I did not discharge my duties as a civil servant nor acted as fiduciary as alleged by all the plaintiffs,” Najib said in his statement of defence.
The defence was to refute allegations by former prime minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, former vice head of the Batu Kawan Umno division Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan and former member of the Langkawi Wanita Umno Anina Saadudin concerning misconduct involving 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
The statement was filed via the legal firm, Tetuan Hafarizam Wan Aisha Mubarak at the civil High Court registrar’s office here yesterday and given to the media today.
On March 23, Mahathir, Khairuddin, and Anina filed a suit against Najib concerning alleged malpractices involving 1MDB.
In his statement, Najib also pointed out that he did not prevent former deputy prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin from carrying out his duties as Umno deputy president during the party’s general assembly nor his duties
as deputy chairman of BN.
Instead, the removal of Muhyiddin was an implementation of the Royal prerogative under Article 43(5) of the Federal Constitution acting on the advice of the prime minister, and the move was not his action in carrying
out his duties said to be as a civil servant.
Najib too did not have any control on the power and tasks carried out by Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali and Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar as well as his officers because their duties are outlined in the Constitution.
In addition, the prime minister does not have any control of the Chief Commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission as all as their officers as the two entities are subjected to the acts specified.
Based on these grounds, Najib contended that in order for all the plaintiffs to initiate proceedings based on tort misfeasance in public office/or fiduciary duty, they must prove that he was a civil servant.
The plaintiffs must prove that they had incurred losses due to the duties carried out by the defendant and that the task he was discharging had malicious intent.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs had no right to all the claims referred to as tort misfeasance in public service and fiduciary potentials because the plaintiffs did not suffer any personal loss. — Bernama