Najib Razak, the former Malaysian prime minister, took the stand to present a defense centered on his leadership approach and a rejection of a so-called “work-in-silo” culture at 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB). In a session that highlighted governance, boardroom dynamics, and the use of external advisers, Najib argued that his tenure emphasized cooperation across government departments. He pointed to initiatives such as the National Blue Ocean Shift as evidence of his effort to break down barriers between ministries and agencies. He argued that silo practices were never part of the culture he fostered, insisting that decisions in government must ripple across the entire public sector rather than remain confined within isolated pockets of authority. Throughout the testimony, Najib spoke of a governance ethos centered on togetherness and coordinated action, presenting this as a contrast to the alleged siloed approach criticized by prosecution witnesses who previously described 1MDB’s practices as operating on a need-to-know basis.
Leadership approach and the fight against silo culture
The defense narrative on collaboration and blue ocean governance
Najib’s testimony framed his leadership as actively promoting cross-departmental cooperation during his time at the helm from 2009 to 2018. He asserted that the National Blue Ocean Shift programme was designed specifically to dismantle “walls” between government departments, thereby encouraging a more integrated approach to public policy and strategic initiatives. He argued that the practice of working in-silo—where units operate in isolation and with limited information sharing—impedes the government’s ability to move forward in tandem with other agencies, ministries, and stakeholders. By recounting these executive measures, Najib sought to establish that his administration worked to foster alignment and cohesion, which, in his view, stands in opposition to the culture described by some prosecution witnesses connected to 1MDB’s management in the years leading up to the Tanore affair.
The role of governance cultures in public enterprises
In Najib’s account, the emphasis on collaboration extended to a broader understanding of how a government-owned or government-linked entity should function. He suggested that the governance architecture of his administration was intended to promote transparency, shared objectives, and coordinated oversight. The implication of his argument is that a cohesive leadership approach not only improves policy outcomes but also strengthens oversight of flagship ventures such as 1MDB. The conflict highlighted in court, according to Najib, concerns differences in organizational culture—between his conception of unified, goal-oriented governance and a perceived tendency toward compartmentalized decision-making that, in his view, could enable misalignment and mismanagement if left unchecked.
The tension between leadership style and prosecution claims
Prosecution witnesses, by contrast, described a 1MDB operating with a need-to-know basis and a work-in-silo mentality that allegedly facilitated certain irregularities. Najib’s re-examination, led by his defence counsel, sought to recast these testimonies as echoing a misreading of governance mechanisms rather than a reflection of his personal leadership style. The defense narrative emphasizes that fostering cooperation across departments is both feasible and essential for effective governance, and that the existence of a centralized, hierarchical leadership did not preclude the flow of important information or appropriate channels for escalation when issues arose.
The broader implications for corporate governance and public accountability
From a governance perspective, the debate between a siloed culture and a collaborative leadership style carries implications for oversight, risk management, and accountability within large public institutions. The defence suggests that a culture of togetherness enables more robust decision-making, faster reaction to emerging risks, and better alignment with strategic objectives across the government’s portfolio. The narrative also aims to reassure the court—and by extension the public—that the leadership approach during Najib’s tenure was aimed at preventing fragmentation that could undermine the integrity of large-scale enterprises such as 1MDB. In framing his leadership style as a deliberate antidote to siloed practices, Najib positions himself as someone who championed a more integrated approach to governance.
Key statements and cross-examination themes
Najib repeatedly asserted that his leadership sought to remove barriers to collaboration, asserting that silo thinking was a disadvantage that undermined tandem action across entities. He asserted that government decisions influence a wide array of units, organizations, and agencies, underscoring the interconnected nature of public policy execution. His statements during cross-examination emphasize a continuous commitment to a culture of togetherness, aligning with the defence’s broader narrative that 1MDB’s governance challenges stemmed from structural or cultural factors beyond his direct control as prime minister and finance minister.
1MDB governance and Bakke Salleh’s resignation: boardroom tensions
The boardroom dynamics and the Bakke resignation
In the course of the proceedings, Najib commented on the resignation of Tan Sri Mohd Bakke Salleh as chairman of 1MDB, describing it as akin to “running away from the problem.” He argued that the board of directors could have terminated problematic management or escalated issues to the Ministry of Finance, given his position as the then-finance minister and the fact that 1MDB’s shareholder was the government. The narrative underscores a view that the governance framework allowed, or at least should have allowed, a more decisive response to management missteps when concerns were raised.
The mismanagement allegations surrounding the PetroSaudi venture
Bakke Salleh’s resignation followed concerns about the joint venture between 1MDB and PetroSaudi International Ltd, a relationship that became a focal point in the broader controversy. The board reportedly required a series of conditions before proceeding, and warnings or objections from the board were reportedly sidelined, undermining governance safeguards. The case details indicate that a large remittance—US$700 million—was transferred to Good Star Ltd, a company connected to PetroSaudi’s affiliate ecosystem, raising questions about the board’s oversight and risk assessment processes.
The Good Star link to Jho Low and the implications for oversight
Good Star Ltd was claimed to be controlled by Low Taek Jho (Jho Low), the fugitive figure widely associated with 1MDB-related controversies. Bakke’s testimony indicated that the board’s directives were not adequately heeded, and the split-remittance pattern, combined with the management’s disregard for board counsel, contributed to the decision to resign. The defense narrative positions Bakke’s decision to resign as a principled stand against a governance environment that permitted, or ignored, material mismanagement in a high-stakes Joint Venture arrangement.
The resignation letter and communications with Najib
Bakke reportedly sent his resignation letter directly to the Prime Minister’s Office in Putrajaya via his secretary, which highlighted the seriousness of the perceptions around mismanagement. Earlier, he sent an SMS to Najib detailing the mismanagement, but Najib’s response was described in testimony as marked by silence. The prosecution’s portrayal of these communications emphasizes a gap between leadership and the board’s concerns, whereas the defense frames these events as part of a broader governance challenge rather than a personal failing of any single actor.
The witness position and the defense cross-examination
As the 15th witness for the prosecution, Bakke’s account added a critical layer to the ongoing examination of management accountability at 1MDB. The defense’s line of questioning, including the re-examination by lead defence counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, sought to contextualize Bakke’s actions within a broader governance framework and to explore potential motives, misperceptions, or systemic constraints that could have influenced decision-making at the highest levels of the fund. The dynamic in the courtroom reflected a broader debate about whether leadership decisions were the primary driver of any missteps or whether structural governance issues played a more significant role.
The interplay between board oversight and strategic decision-making
This segment of Najib’s testimony and the associated cross-examination reflect a larger tension between board oversight and strategic execution in state-linked enterprises. The narratives presented suggest that even with active attempts at governance reforms, misalignment or failures in communication could contribute to decisions with far-reaching financial and reputational consequences. The defense’s emphasis on collaboration and governance reform is positioned as a corrective mechanism to mitigate such risks, while the prosecution’s portrayal of a siloed or misaligned management strategy underscores the perceived need for stronger oversight.
Consultancy, donations, and public communications
Local consultancy engagements and cost allocations
Najib turned attention to payments made to local consultancy firms, describing them as necessary for communicating government policies and narratives to the public across additional platforms. He named ORB Solutions Sdn Bhd, which received RM2 million, and Semarak Konsortium Satu Sdn Bhd, which received RM303,000, among others. He explained that these firms were engaged to fulfill communication objectives, effectively replacing international consultancy arrangements that had previously been contracted, notably Apco.
The Apco controversy and its termination
Najib indicated that Apco Worldwide, the international consultancy engaged during his predecessor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s tenure, had been continued into his early years as prime minister before being terminated due to controversy surrounding the firm’s alleged ties to Israel. The narrative presents a rationale for shifting toward local firms, with the aim of maintaining effective communication while addressing public concern over perceived affiliations.
The donations argument: money as policy finance
A central theme Najib reiterated was that the funds discussed in relation to 1MDB were donations from the Middle East, not proceeds from illicit activities. He asserted that there was no doubt in his mind that the funds were donations as promised by the late Saudi King Abdullah, and that he maintained a belief in their source as a legitimate donor contribution rather than a misappropriated fund. He argued that acknowledging the donor’s intent would be tantamount to recognizing wrongdoing, whereas failing to act upon the information would, in his view, constitute a form of self-harm or “hara-kiri” in a cultural metaphorical sense.
The harakiri metaphor and cross-examination dynamics
During cross-examination, the defence solicitor, Shafee, prompted Najib to acknowledge the severity of the potential implications of misusing donor funds. The defense’s juxtaposition of “hara-kiri” with the potential consequences of inaction underscored the weight Najib attaches to the donor narrative, and his readiness to defend these positions as consistent with his interpretation of accountability and transparency in governance. Najib agreed with the cross-examiner’s analogy, reinforcing the defense’s storytelling arc around personal responsibility and political risk management.
The role of local versus international consultants in public messaging
Najib’s testimony framed the shift to local consultants not simply as a cost-saving measure but as a strategic choice designed to help the government communicate policy more effectively to the public. By using firms like ORB Solutions and Semarak Konsortium, the administration aimed to tailor its outreach to Malaysian audiences while preserving the quality and reach of public messaging. The defense asserts that this approach aligned with the government’s broader objectives of accessible communication, policy clarity, and consistency in the dissemination of information to the citizenry.
The broader policy communication strategy and accountability
This segment of the narrative emphasizes that public communications and public diplomacy were considered integral to governance. The defence’s emphasis on the legitimacy of these expenditures is presented as a counterpoint to the prosecution’s framing of 1MDB-related outlays as misappropriations or improper use of public funds. The courtroom discussion about donations and public messaging is positioned as part of a broader argument about how governance and communications strategies intersect with risk management, financial oversight, and political responsibility.
Trial context, charges, and defense strategy
The legal framework and the charges in play
Najib faces four counts of abuse of power and twenty-one counts of money-laundering, with the trial presided over by Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah. The proceedings focus on the alleged misuses of power and the movement of funds connected to 1MDB’s affairs and related ventures. The defense seeks to contextualize each charge within a broader governance and policy framework, arguing that actions taken were consistent with legitimate governance aims or operational strategies rather than criminal intent or personal enrichment. The prosecution, meanwhile, continues to press on the details of the alleged misappropriations and the mechanisms by which funds were moved and used.
Cross-examinations, re-examinations, and the defense’s posture
Najib’s defence counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, has engaged in re-examinations intended to clarify and reinforce Najib’s narrative about leadership style, governance reform, and the integrity of donors and advisory contracts. The cross-examinations have focused on the characterization of governance practices, the decision-making process behind the 1MDB joint ventures, and the rationale for engaging external consultants. The defense’s strategy is to cast doubt on the causal links between Najib’s actions and the alleged financial wrongdoing, framing the issues as governance or policy disputes rather than straightforward criminal conduct.
The role of witness testimony in shaping the case
Testimony from key figures like Bakke Salleh has influenced how the court views the dynamics between the board, management, and the political leadership. The defence relies on such testimonies to underscore a narrative of systemic governance constraints and to argue that the board and management faced structural pressures and informational asymmetries that could have contributed to decisions accused of malfeasance. The trial’s unfolding testimony paints a complex picture of accountability, where leadership responsibility, governance architecture, and policy implementation intersect with the financial irregularities claimed by the prosecution.
The progression of the case and possible implications
As the trial continues, Najib’s defense positions aim to demonstrate that his leadership and governance choices were consistent with a broader public-interest agenda and that the alleged misappropriations and money movements were not driven by personal malfeasance but by policy and communication strategies within a challenging financial and political climate. The court will weigh these arguments against the prosecution’s presentation of evidence and witnesses, including documentary records and testimonies that allege a pattern of abuse of power and money-laundering related to 1MDB’s assets and transactions.
Broader implications for governance, accountability, and public trust
Public governance reforms and the 1MDB saga
This exchange in court touches on the enduring debate about governance reforms in state-linked enterprises in Malaysia. The narrative around silo culture, board oversight, and executive leadership has implications beyond 1MDB, informing discussions about accountability mechanisms, the independence of boards, and the role of public sector leadership in safeguarding public funds. The defense’s emphasis on cooperation and governance reform resonates with broader calls for stronger governance frameworks that can withstand pressures from complex joint ventures and high-stakes financial arrangements.
The role of donor narratives in public finance
Najib’s insistence on donor funding and the critique of misappropriation allegations highlights the sensitivity around donor narratives in public finance. The controversy surrounding funds alleged to originate from the Middle East underscores the importance of transparent origin tracing, robust governance controls, and clear communication about funding sources in publicly funded projects. The trial’s outcome may influence subsequent policy discussions about how financial support for public policy activities should be documented, disclosed, and scrutinized.
Impacts on public perception and political legitimacy
The case’s progression shapes public trust in political leadership and governance institutions. How Najib’s leadership style is characterized—whether as a principled reformer or as part of a broader governance struggle—has implications for the public’s view of accountability in Malaysian politics. The court’s rulings, witness testimonies, and the arguments advanced by both sides contribute to a lasting narrative about the integrity of governance in a context of significant economic and political stakes.
Looking forward: trial trajectory and potential outcomes
As the trial moves forward, observers will watch for how the defense’s arguments about leadership, governance reform, and donor narratives stand up to the prosecution’s case regarding alleged abuse of power and money-laundering. The interplay between leadership style, board accountability, and the governance architecture surrounding 1MDB will continue to be a central theme in the courtroom and in public discourse.
Conclusion
Najib Razak’s defense in the 1MDB-Tanore trial foregrounds a central claim: his leadership emphasized collaboration and the dismantling of siloed practices within government to promote cohesive governance. He points to initiatives like the National Blue Ocean Shift as evidence of his attempt to break down departmental barriers and align policy execution across agencies. His remarks on Bakke Salleh’s resignation frame boardroom tensions as a governance challenge rather than a personal failure, arguing that the board and management should have escalated concerns more decisively but that structural constraints played a significant role. The discussion of consultancy engagements and the Donor narrative further illustrates the defense’s aim to recast expenditures as legitimate policy communications and donor-financed activities, while maintaining that the funds were indeed donations from the Middle East and not proceeds of wrongdoing.
The trial context remains complex, with Najib facing multiple charges, and the proceedings continuing to probe the precise pathways through which funds moved and were used. The diverging narratives—one of collaborative governance and reform, the other of siloed practices and possible mismanagement—are central to the courtroom discourse and to the broader public understanding of governance, accountability, and transparency in Malaysia’s high-stakes public finance landscape. As testimony unfolds, the court’s rulings will not only determine the fate of Najib’s case but also influence discussions about how leadership style, board oversight, and donor narratives intersect with the governance of public enterprises in Malaysia.