On Jul 28 last year, the High Court sentenced Najib to 12 years in jail and fined him RM210 million, following a guilty verdict in his first corruption trial involving millions of ringgit from former 1MDB subsidiary SRC International Sdn Bhd.
He was charged with three counts of criminal breach of trust, three counts of money laundering and one count of abuse of power.
For each count of criminal breach of trust, Najib was sentenced to 10 years' jail; for each count of money laundering, 10 years.
For abuse of power, the judge handed out a sentence of 12 years' jail and a RM210 million fine. If Najib fails to pay the fine, a five-year jail sentence will be served in lieu. All prison sentences would run concurrently.
Judges at the appellate court had concluded the hearing on Najib’s appeal on May 18.
However, On Dec 1, Najib applied to the Court of Appeal to allow and to direct for viva voce (oral) evidence to be taken from Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Azam Baki and MACC investigating officer Rosli Hussein.
He also asked the court to allow evidence from any other witness in relation to the case, according to Bernama.
According to an affidavit in support of the application made available to the media, the former prime minister explained that he sought the adducing of the new evidence following the revelation by MACC that Singapore had repatriated to Malaysia US$15.4 million in 1MDB-linked funds that involved a company co-owned by Tawfiq Ayman, the husband of former Bank Negara (BNM) governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz.
Najib claimed that the evidence was not available during the SRC criminal trial before the Kuala Lumpur High Court and that the new evidence is "materially relevant" to the issues linked to the case.
In its reply to the affidavit, the prosecution said on Monday that they objected to Najib’s application to adduce new evidence, contending that it was only done to delay the appeal decision scheduled on Wednesday.
Bernama quoted deputy public prosecutor Budiman Lutfi Mohamed as saying that all the evidence in the case had been made available to the Kuala Lumpur High Court and the Court of Appeal for the determination of Najib’s appeal.
Hence, there was no relevant additional evidence that was required for the fair disposal of the case, said Mr Budiman.
He categorically denied that the prosecution has concealed any fact relevant to the charges during the trial or appeal process before the Court of Appeal.