Najib Razak took the stand to defend his actions in the high-stakes 1MDB-Tanore trial, insisting that his relationship with Jho Low was driven by the need to access international connections rather than to facilitate any misappropriation of 1MDB funds. In his testimony, the former prime minister said that his engagement with Low Taek Jho was a strategic choice to leverage overseas networks, not an arrangement to channel illicit money. He asserted that his goal was to tap into Low’s access to influential figures abroad, particularly in the Middle East, so as to broaden Malaysia’s diplomatic and financial horizons. This distinction, he argued, was crucial: he did not want to be perceived as beholden to Low, but rather as someone who was actively using Low’s connections to advance national interests.
Within the same thread, Najib rejected the notion that Low acted as a proxy or broker for plundering 1MDB funds. He framed his relationship with Low as transactional and functional rather than conspiratorial. According to Najib, Low’s role was to open doors and facilitate introductions to key international actors, rather than to orchestrate any transfer or siphoning of 1MDB assets. He stressed that he never trusted Low completely, and that his awareness of Low’s alleged extravagant lifestyle contributed to his discomfort with the arrangement. This discomfort, Najib contended, was a legitimate reaction to what he described as a “glaring” display of opulence—one that did not align with prudent governance or acceptable conduct for someone connected to the government’s flagship development fund.
Najib’s account also touched on the sources of Low’s wealth and how the former prime minister navigated the moral and legal implications of accepting help from someone whose finances were controversial. He admitted to confronting Low about the conspicuous purchases and bankroll that funded Low’s lifestyle, including high-end acquisitions and travel. The confrontation, he said, did not yield a straightforward or satisfying explanation from Low. Najib recounted that Low’s repeated line when pressed about the sources of funds was that he was acting for Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a prominent Emirati figure widely recognized as a major sovereign wealth beneficiary and the owner of Manchester City Football Club. The repeated claim—“I am doing it for Sheikh Mansour”—became a focal point in Najib’s account of why he did not probe further at the time. He emphasized that he was uncomfortable with the lifestyle, describing it as ostentatious and not something he would approve of or be comfortable with under any circumstances.
In explaining why he did not pursue a fuller accounting of the money behind Low’s expenditures, Najib pointed to what he described as a sensitive international dimension. He argued that investigating the sources of Low’s funds would involve foreign governments and delicate diplomatic considerations, which, in his view, required a measured approach rather than a unilateral probe. When pressed by the deputy public prosecutor about whether this indicated willful ignorance or a deliberate choice to overlook potential red flags, Najib consistently asserted that his position was circumscribed by concern for foreign government dynamics and overarching geopolitical sensitivities. He voiced a belief that the proper forum for such inquiries would involve state actors and international oversight rather than domestic investigations alone.
The narrative Najib offered also touched on his broader governance philosophy—namely, that he relied on the legitimacy of international engagement to advance Malaysia’s interests, while attempting to maintain domestic accountability. He framed the use of Low’s international network as a means of diversifying Malaysia’s diplomatic reach and economic opportunities, rather than as a vehicle for private enrichment. In this framing, Najib tried to convert what critics saw as a potentially risky dependence on a controversial figure into a controlled strategy designed to extract value for Malaysia on the global stage. The emphasis was on perceived independence from Low’s influence: a deliberate attempt to ensure the prime minister’s office remained the center of authority, with Low’s role limited to facilitating access rather than dictating policy.
In later exchanges, the former prime minister reiterated his claim that he first met Jho Low during his tenure as deputy prime minister, underscoring that Low’s relationship with Najib’s family predated their official interactions. He noted that Low’s brother and Najib’s stepson, Riza Aziz, shared a prior familiarity, which contributed to Low’s presence in the Najib circle—sometimes at Najib’s offices or at the private residence. Najib asserted there was nothing inherently improper about these visits, acknowledging that Low did come around from time to time. He pushed back against insinuations that Low’s presence indicated a continuous or unregulated relationship, insisting that his family’s familiarity with Low reflected a close social network rather than a formal endorsement of his business dealings.
As the cross-examination progressed, Najib also addressed a notable episode surrounding a meeting in New York with Goldman Sachs personnel, including then-CEO Lloyd Blankfein. He clarified that he did not invite Jho Low to the meeting, nor did Low actively participate in the session. His explanation was that Low appeared at events connected to the prime minister’s profile because many parties sought visibility with the premier. Najib argued that the presence of Low at that event did not signify that Low had a role in shaping the substantive agenda or decisions of the meeting. He emphasized that a substantial number of attendees who were not directly invited by him appeared at such occasions simply because they sought proximity to the prime minister, a dynamic he described as common in high-profile political and business circles.
The defense position, as presented through Najib’s testimony, is that Jho Low’s role in the international dimension of Najib’s governance strategy was that of an intermediary with access to influential networks, not a covert operator in a scheme to siphon funds. The difference, according to Najib, lies in intention and control: he insisted that his aim was to leverage Low’s connections to facilitate relationships with major Middle Eastern partners and other international players, while ensuring that any financial arrangements remained under appropriate oversight and scrutiny by Malaysia’s institutions. He repeated his assertion that he did not want it to appear that he relied wholly on Low, and he sought to demonstrate that he was utilizing Low’s unique position to broaden diplomatic and economic channels rather than transferring power or decision-making to a private actor.
The overarching theme of this section of Najib’s testimony is a careful attempt to separate perceived opportunistic leverage from culpable misappropriation. By drawing a distinction between networking and illicit activity, Najib sought to reframe the narrative around his engagement with Low as a strategic, lawful, and ultimately domestic-focused effort to diversify Malaysia’s international ties. He maintained that even if Low’s lifestyle and wealth were ostentatious, these personal characteristics did not automatically translate into criminal actions against 1MDB. The rhetoric here was designed to reassure jurors and the public that his government did not rely on or enable a scheme of embezzlement, but rather pursued a broader set of diplomatic and financial objectives through legitimate channels—albeit ones that were heavily scrutinized and controversial.
In sum, this portion of Najib Razak’s testimony centers on two intertwined claims: first, that Jho Low served as a conduit to international networks without implying that Low controlled or corrupted 1MDB funds; and second, that Najib’s discomfort with Low’s lifestyle was genuine and warranted careful supervision, not passive complicity. The narrative he offered sought to preserve his own credibility by portraying himself as a cautious operator who sought to balance strategic advantages with the need for accountability and, when necessary, distance from questionable actors. The cross-examination subsequently moved into other dimensions of the case, including the specifics of meetings, the authenticity of certain recordings, and the emerging questions about Middle Eastern influence and money trails, which formed the core of the prosecution’s assertions and the defense’s counterarguments.
Cross-examination highlights and responses on Jho Low’s access and lifestyle
During the cross-examination on Thursday, the deputy public prosecutor, Mohamad Mustaffa P. Kunyalam, pressed Najib on a series of news articles and publicly circulated images that depicted Jho Low in settings that suggested a lavish, extravagant lifestyle. The prosecutor cited a yacht voyage with prominent hotel heiresses, Paris and Nicky Hilton, as well as an Edge magazine feature from 2015 that spotlighted Low’s luxury portfolio. The aim was to challenge Najib’s assertion that Low’s wealth and personal expenditures did not bear upon 1MDB’s funds or the integrity of the government’s financial governance. The questions centered on whether Najib had full awareness of the scale and sources of Low’s wealth, and whether his approach to Low’s spending signaled a broader tolerance for potentially questionable behavior by a figure who, by Najib’s own admission, enjoyed proximity to the Prime Minister.
Najib stated that he did not recall the 2015 Edge article specifically; he said he was not informed of that particular report at the time. However, he acknowledged that there were circulating rumors about Jho Low’s purchases abroad. This admission did not go unchallenged by the prosecutor, who pressed the point further by arguing that rumors are not a reliable substitute for due diligence or a principled inquiry into the origins of funding. The debate centered on the line between prudent caution and willful ignorance. The prosecutor’s position implied that Najib should have conducted more thorough inquiries into Low’s financial dealings, especially given Low’s proximity to the prime minister and to Najib’s family, including Riza Aziz, who had pre-existing connections with Low.
Najib’s response to these lines of inquiry emphasized his personal discomfort rather than a deliberate refusal to investigate. He testified that he confronted Jho Low about his lavish lifestyle and the broader implications for governance and public perception. He asserted that he sought a direct answer to the question of how Low amassed such wealth, but Low’s replies remained evasive. The repeated assertion that Low claimed his activities were undertaken for Sheikh Mansour was cited by Najib as evidence of Low’s justification for his expenditures rather than a defensible explanation. According to Najib, this pattern of responses underscored Low’s role as someone who could present a persuasive narrative but who did not provide concrete accountability for the funds involved.
In recounting the confrontation, Najib described a persistent tension between the desire to leverage Low’s international connections and a strong aversion to the lifestyle associated with those connections. He testified that the ostentatious displays were difficult to reconcile with his own standards of governance and with the expectations of the public and international financial observers. This discomfort, he argued, was a legitimate reason to exercise restraint and to question the advisability of continuing to rely on Low’s network for critical state interests. He insisted that this line of questioning should lead to more rigorous due diligence and transparency, rather than a passive acceptance of Low’s claims or a reluctance to probe the sources of funds.
The cross-examination also revisited Najib’s earlier statements about his use of Low for access to Middle Eastern and Emirati connections, particularly in relation to Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The prosecutor pressed Najib to clarify whether this reliance on Low’s ties translated into any obligation or expectation that Low would influence policy decisions or direct 1MDB’s funds. Najib rejected the notion that Low acted as a “shadow operator” who could control funding flows or steer government decisions. Instead, he reiterated his position that Low’s role was to facilitate introductions and to present opportunities that might otherwise be inaccessible through normal channels. He insisted that this did not amount to surrendering authority or compromising governance, but rather to leveraging a network to advance Malaysia’s strategic interests in a controlled and responsible manner.
Throughout this exchange, the core issues remained consistent: the degree of Najib’s knowledge about Low’s wealth and spending, the extent to which Low’s influence permeated official processes, and the strategic value Najib attributed to Low’s international connections. The cross-examination sought to reveal whether Najib’s denials of direct involvement in misappropriation were credible, given the broader context of the 1MDB scandal and the allegations that Low operated as a facilitator for various financial arrangements. Najib’s narrative, once again, framed his relationship with Low as a matter of international diplomacy and reputation management, rather than a conduit for illicit financial activity.
Jho Low’s presence at meetings and the Goldman Sachs encounter: Najib’s stance
A portion of the testimony focused on the circumstances surrounding Jho Low’s presence at a meeting involving Goldman Sachs personnel in 2009, which included the bank’s then-CEO Lloyd Blankfein. Najib stated clearly that he did not invite Jho Low to that meeting, nor did Low participate in the New York session. He argued that Low had attended events and meetings not because he was personally invited by him, but because a number of individuals sought to be seen in proximity to the Prime Minister. The implication of this assertion is that Low’s appearances at such high-profile gatherings were the result of external pressures or the social dynamics of power and influence rather than a deliberate policy decision by Najib to engage with Low in a formal capacity.
Najib described a broader social phenomenon in which many attendees at these events sought association with the Prime Minister, whether through direct invitations or through incidental attendance. He observed that the presence of many prominent figures in these settings was not necessarily evidence of a direct working relationship with the Prime Minister himself, but rather a reflection of the high profile of the event or the significance of the platform. This explanation was intended to undermine the inference that Low’s attendance at the Goldman Sachs meeting signaled a formal role in governing decisions or in the oversight of 1MDB funds. It was framed as a matter of optics and social dynamics in elite financial circles, rather than a direct governance arrangement.
At the heart of the discussion was the prosecution’s argument that Jho Low functioned as Najib’s mirror image in the alleged misappropriation of 1MDB funds. The defense, however, maintained that there was a clear distinction between the two individuals’ roles: Low’s access and social capital did not translate into control over state assets or decisions. The defense argued that any suggestion of Low wielding influence over Najib or the government should be viewed with skepticism, given Najib’s repeated claims of independence from Low and his insistence that he was only “using him” for his international reach. The tension between these positions underscored the central legal question of the trial: whether Low acted as an insider facilitator for a scheme to fraudulently divert funds, or whether Najib’s connections were used in a manner that remained within the bounds of legality and proper oversight.
As the section concluded, the task for the court remained to assess the credibility of Najib’s claims against the prosecution’s theory about the role of Jho Low. The cross-examination of Najib continued to hinge on the accuracy and context of the relationships involved, the nature of Low’s contributions, and the extent to which any actions connected to 1MDB could be traced to private or foreign actors rather than to official government processes. The broader narrative of the 1MDB-Tanore trial—already characterized by intense scrutiny of multiple actors and a tangled web of financial dealings—hinged on how convincingly Najib could defend his stance that his use of Low was a legitimate strategic choice, not a gateway to wrongdoing. The proceedings moved forward with more questions about the authenticity of recordings and the scope of foreign influence in Malaysian governance, while the defense continued to emphasize the separateness of personal connections from public policy.
The prosecution’s portrayal of Jho Low as a mirror image and Najib’s defense
Throughout the trial, prosecutors have contended that Jho Low acted as a mirror image to Najib’s leadership, effectively mirroring the actions and strategies associated with the 1MDB fund’s exploitation. They argued that Low’s role went beyond mere social or diplomatic engagement and extended into a coordinated effort to leverage his access to international networks for the benefit of those in control of the fund. The prosecutors have maintained that Low’s activities were intertwined with the government’s strategies and that his influence extended into decisions surrounding the development and disbursement of 1MDB assets. The defense has rejected this characterization, contending that Low’s involvement was peripheral, informal, and never allowed to override the proper governance structures that were supposed to oversee 1MDB’s operations. They argued that Najib’s role was to act within the bounds of established processes and to rely on legitimate channels for international engagement, rather than to operate through a private intermediary whose actions could undermine the integrity of national funds.
A critical point of contention has been the alleged use of foreign connections, including those in the Middle East, to secure advantages for Riza Aziz, Najib’s stepson, who was linked to 1MDB-related matters. The prosecution has suggested that this network-building activity was not merely a matter of diplomacy but a driver of financial arrangements that favored private interests at the expense of public accountability. The defense has insisted that any such interactions were conducted within a legitimate political and diplomatic framework and did not amount to misappropriation of public resources. The debate highlights the complex interplay between personal relationships, international diplomacy, and the legal framework governing state funds.
In this context, the court must weigh the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by both sides, including cross-examination lines, testimonies about the sources of wealth, and alleged recordings that have been admitted into evidence. The admissibility of those recordings—previously the subject of extensive legal argument—has already been established, and the court will continue to parse their relevance to the allegations of abuse of power and money-laundering. The prosecution’s narrative emphasizes the cumulative weight of Low’s alleged influence and the degree to which Najib’s leadership could be constrained or directed by private actors with access to international networks. The defense counters with a counter-narrative that seeks to reframe Low’s role as a facilitator—one who could assist in expanding Malaysia’s international footprint without compromising the integrity of public institutions or the financial management of 1MDB.
As the trial progresses, both sides will continue to refine their positions on how to interpret the relationship between Najib and Low, the significance of their interactions for 1MDB, and the implications for the charges of abuse of power and money-laundering that Najib faces. The case remains a focal point for debates about governance, accountability, and the way in which private wealth and international networks intersect with national development funds. The judge’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence and the credibility of key witnesses will be decisive in shaping the ultimate outcome of the proceedings and the broader public understanding of what transpired in relation to 1MDB and its associated entities.
Najib elusive on whether he sought Middle Eastern help for stepson Riza
In a later phase of the proceedings, the defense returned to a sensitive topic centered on whether Najib had sought assistance from Middle Eastern royalty to resolve issues connected with his stepson Riza Aziz, who faced alleged entanglement with 1MDB funds. The cross-examination referenced audio recordings and a purported telephone conversation involving Najib and the then-crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohamed Zayed Al Nahyan. The central claim in the recordings was that Najib sought help to legitimize funds that appeared in Riza’s account by making it seem as though the prince had extended a loan, thereby masking the true origin of the money. The court had previously allowed these calls to be admitted as evidence, recognizing their potential significance for establishing a connection between Najib, Riza, and foreign actors in the broader 1MDB narrative.
A recording was played that purportedly captured a discussion between Najib and Khaldoon Khalifa Al-Mubarak regarding pursuing such assistance. Najib, however, repeatedly challenged the authenticity and reliability of the recordings, stating that he could not verify their veracity and expressing discomfort with the broader legality of the entire matter. He indicated that the authenticity of the recordings could not be assumed and stated that the legal implications of relying on such material were troubling to him. He also suggested that the recordings did not demonstrate his personal interest in resolving 1MDB issues, asserting that his involvement for the purposes of Riza’s matters did not demonstrate personal wrongdoing.
The admissibility and interpretation of the recordings have been central to the case’s evidentiary battles. Both the defense and the prosecution conducted extensive arguments in 2022 and 2023 about whether the recordings should be admitted and what weight they should carry in the tribunal’s assessment. The presiding judge, Datuk Collin Lawrence Sequerah, ultimately ruled that the recordings could be admitted as evidence, adding to the factual landscape of the trial. The relevance of these recordings to Najib’s purported intentions and to the possibility of external influence in the resolution of 1MDB-related concerns remains a crucial point of contention for the court’s ultimate determination on the charges at hand.
The proceedings also touched on how these purported communications aligned with the broader DOJ forfeiture actions related to assets allegedly acquired through 1MDB funds. The cross-examination carefully connected the dots between the alleged international help sought to address issues arising from 1MDB funds, the defense’s attempt to dissociate Najib’s actions from criminal intent, and the court’s ongoing assessment of the credibility of audio evidence. It is within this context that Najib reiterated his stance that he had no personal stake in the outcomes of dealings regarding 1MDB and Riza’s accounts, and that he had sought to navigate a complicated international landscape with caution and a focus on legitimate avenues for resolution.
As the trial moves forward, the central question remains whether the recordings reflect Najib’s strategic diplomacy and legitimate statecraft, or whether they reveal a pattern of actions intended to shield or legitimise funds that derived from 1MDB activities. The court’s careful weighing of these issues will influence the eventual outcomes of Najib’s four abuse-of-power charges and the 21 money-laundering charges, which form the backbone of the case as it continues to unfold in court.
The admissibility of recordings, the broader DOJ context, and the trial’s trajectory
The broader context of the proceedings is deeply intertwined with international legal actions surrounding 1MDB, including the United States Department of Justice’s forfeiture suits targeting assets allegedly acquired with 1MDB funds. The defense and the prosecution have engaged in rigorous debates about how such external legal actions intersect with domestic proceedings, and what weight they should carry in defining Najib’s intent, knowledge, and responsibility. The cross-examinations have repeatedly circled back to the authenticity and reliability of the audio recordings that have been introduced as evidence. The court’s acceptance of these recordings as admissible evidence has given the prosecution material to argue that Najib was directly involved in discussions that could imply personal or external influence in the handling of 1MDB funds, while the defense seeks to minimize or reinterpret their significance in light of questions about their provenance and accuracy.
The trial remains one of Malaysia’s most closely watched legal proceedings, with the public and international observers keenly following the outcomes because of the implications for governance, transparency, and the rule of law in cases involving a high-profile former prime minister and a prominent development fund. The case casts a long shadow over Malaysia’s political and financial landscape, inviting careful consideration of how leaders’ personal networks intersect with state resources. The prosecution has characterized the matter as a cautionary tale about the dangers of private influence over public funds, while the defense argues that the evidence must be understood in a nuanced light that respects the boundaries between legitimate diplomacy and illicit activity.
In the ongoing proceedings, Najib faces four counts of abuse of power and twenty-one counts of money laundering, a combination that reflects the gravity and complexity of the charges at stake. The trial continues to unfold as the court assesses the evidence, weighs competing narratives, and considers the broader implications for governance, accountability, and Malaysia’s international financial standing. The judicial process remains focused on establishing whether the conduct attributed to Najib and his associates constitutes a breach of the law or whether it can be situated within the bounds of legitimate political leadership and statecraft.
Conclusion
In the current phase of the 1MDB-Tanore trial, Najib Razak’s testimony centers on a carefully constructed defense: his use of Jho Low’s international connections as a strategic tool, not as a vehicle for misappropriating 1MDB funds. He frames his interactions with Low as a means to broaden Malaysia’s diplomatic and economic reach, while maintaining vigilance over potential conflicts of interest and insisting that any dealings were subject to proper oversight. The cross-examination has probed potential inconsistencies, particularly regarding Low’s lavish lifestyle and the sources of his wealth, as well as the authenticity and relevance of audio recordings that purportedly reveal Najib’s discussions with foreign actors. Najib’s insistence on his own independence from Low—despite close family and business associations—remains central to his defense against the charges of abuse of power and money laundering.
The prosecution’s narrative, however, continues to portray Jho Low as a mirror image of Najib’s leadership, arguing that Low’s influence and access were leveraged to facilitate the movement of funds associated with 1MDB, thus challenging Najib’s claim of separation between personal connections and official governance. The court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, the credibility of key witnesses, and the interpretation of the audio recordings will be decisive as the trial progresses. The proceedings also intersect with broader international legal actions related to 1MDB, adding layers of complexity to an already intricate case that has reverberations for governance and accountability in Malaysia.
As the trial moves forward, observers will be watching to see how the defense and prosecution reconcile competing interpretations of the same events, how the judge weighs the evidentiary questions surrounding recordings, and how the broader geopolitical implications of the case may influence public perception of political leadership and financial stewardship. The outcome will have lasting implications for the individuals involved, the integrity of Malaysia’s financial institutions, and the country’s ongoing efforts to strengthen governance and transparency in the management of state-backed development funds. The trial remains active, with continued testimony and further arguments anticipated as both sides sharpen their positions in this landmark legal confrontation.
