What does DNAA mean for Najib and Irwan in the IPIC case?

SHAH ALAM - Former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and former treasury secretary-general Tan Sri Mohd Irwan Serigar Abdullah were granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) in the RM6.6 billion criminal breach of trust (CBT) case involving the International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC).

While the decision made earlier today has triggered political and public discourse, it does not erase Najib’s existing convictions or the possibility of new charges.

What does this mean?

The DNAA signifies that while the charges against Najib and Irwan have been dropped for now, they are not entirely free from prosecution. The case can be reopened anytime if the prosecution decides to pursue the charges again.

High Court Judge Datuk Muhammad Jamil Hussin justified the decision due to excessive delays and the prosecution's failure to comply with the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

The prosecution specifically did not provide crucial classified documents, impeding the defence’s ability to prepare for trial.

Both Najib and Irwan were accused of mismanaging government funds amounting to RM6.6 billion, allegedly linked to payments to IPIC.

Who is Tan Sri Mohd Irwan Serigar Abdullah?

Irwan was a senior government official who played a pivotal role in Malaysia's financial administration. He served as treasury secretary-general during Najib's tenure as Malaysia’s sixth prime minister.

As treasury secretary-general, he oversaw national budgets and fiscal policies. In this case, his position implicated him as one of the trustees of government funds that were allegedly misused.

Both were accused of mismanaging government funds amounting to RM6.6 billion, allegedly linked to payments to IPIC.

However, Irwan maintained his innocence throughout the legal proceedings, asserting that all actions were conducted according to government procedures.

"I was confident there was no case against me because everything was done according to government procedures and with the cabinet's approval.

"I am vindicated. Hopefully, I can go on my umrah now," he told reporters after the verdict of the DNAA.

What were the charges?

Najib and Irwan faced six CBT charges under Section 409 of the Penal Code. These involved misappropriation of funds from the Federal Consolidated Fund for purposes such as subsidies, development projects and payments to IPIC.

The funds in question totalled RM6.6 billion and the alleged offences occurred between December 2016 and December 2017. If convicted, both could have faced up to 20 years in prison, fines and even caning.

Why were the charges dropped?

The court cited three primary reasons for the DNAA:

• Failure to Comply with Legal Procedures: The prosecution did not provide documents required under Section 51A of the CPC, despite repeated requests.
• Prolonged Delays: The case, registered in 2018, faced multiple postponements over six years due to the non-declassification of critical documents.
• Non-Prejudice to Prosecution: The DNAA does not hinder the prosecution's ability to recharge the accused in the future.

What are the implications politically?

A political analyst suggested that this development could influence Umno's strategy and shape public perception.

International Islamic University Malaysia political science associate professor Dr Syaza Shukri said Umno is likely to capitalise on this situation to advance their campaign to secure Najib’s release, as it aligns with the party’s interests.

Syaza however said that the DNAA verdict is unlikely to disrupt the stability of the Pakatan Harapan-Barisan Nasional (PH-BN) Unity Government.

“While PH supporters may express dissatisfaction, the government’s foundation rests on an agreement between party leaders.

“As long as Umno President Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and PH Chairman Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim maintain a strong relationship, the coalition should remain stable.

“That said, PH will need to put in significant effort to clarify the DNAA issue to the public and prepare for intensified attacks from the opposition,” she added.

Public reaction

The DNAA sparked a range of reactions. Critics voiced frustration, viewing it as a symbol of inefficiencies within the legal system, while others questioned the timing and speculated on potential political motivations behind the decision.

On X, formerly known as Twitter, users openly shared their thoughts. One user, @alfang88, lamented, “RM6.6 billion, finished with DNAA!”

Similarly, @NorSham766944 wondered, “Where did all the money go? Just lost like that, it is billions of Ringgit Malaysia, not hundreds.”

Another, @SpeaksAi654321, emphasised the significance of the missing funds, asking, “RM6.6 billion, how many hospitals? How many car parks? How many traffic light cameras? How many sidewalks? How many affordable houses?”

In contrast, Najib’s supporters celebrated the ruling, viewing it as a validation of his long-standing claims of innocence.

The 1MDB and SRC Cases

Despite being granted DNAA in the IPIC case, Najib remains in prison for his convictions in the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) and SRC International Sdn Bhd. He is currently serving a six-year jail term and has been fined RM50 million after being convicted on seven charges involving abuse of power, criminal breach of trust (CBT) and money laundering related to SRC funds, a former subsidiary of 1MDB.

The DNAA does not alter his existing sentences or court rulings. However, rumours have been circulating for months about Najib potentially serving the remainder of his sentence under house arrest.

During the Budget 2025 speech on Oct 18, the government announced plans to draft a new law introducing house arrest as an alternative form of imprisonment for certain offences. However, Anwar did not address this proposal in his public presentation, sparking widespread criticism.

This announcement followed Najib’s claim of a royal decree allowing him to serve his sentence at home, a claim dismissed as "hearsay" by the courts.

On July 3, the Kuala Lumpur High Court rejected Najib’s application for a judicial review to produce the alleged royal decree.

The court ruled that affidavits supporting the claim, submitted by Deputy Prime Minister Zahid and Pahang Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Wan Rosdy Wan Ismail, were also deemed hearsay. The court’s decision effectively put the matter to rest.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail emphasised that the proposed house arrest law is not intended to apply to inmates already sentenced. He also clarified that the Home Ministry is not part of the Pardons Board and reiterated the court's ruling on the purported royal decree, urging that the issue no longer be debated.

The controversy surrounding the house arrest proposal has drawn significant public and political attention, with critics questioning its timing and potential implications, particularly in relation to Najib’s ongoing imprisonment.

This DNAA ruling adds another layer of complexity to Malaysia’s political and judicial landscape.

While it offers temporary relief to Najib and Irwan, the public and political observers will closely watch for further developments, particularly in Malaysia’s pursuit of justice in financial scandals.