Ad-hoc prosecutor V Sithambaram said the move was also to change the defence which lawyers for the accused did not raise during the prosecution stage.

“It is a tactical manoeuvre to reopen the prosecution’s case,” he said in his submission in response to Najib’s application for the court to allow Australian expert, Dr Steven Strach, to examine the original or higher quality copies of the documents tendered in court.

He said the defence had not raised the issue of forgery before the trial and during the prosecution’s case.

There are six disputed documents which are related to SRC shareholder’s minutes and one on the instruction to transfer money to Ambank where Najib had private accounts.

The defence said the documents might have been forged and this was only discovered during the trial but the prosecution claimed that Najib’s legal team had suspected that the documents were falsified and was communicating with a foregn expert about them.

“They should have alerted us so that we could have called our experts or they should have touched on this matter by cross-examining prosecution witnesses.

“However, they sat on their rights and now they are making all sorts of allegations,” Sithambaram said.

He said Najib did not raise the forgery issue when the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers recorded his statement during investigation in 2015 and 2018.

“In fact, he told the officers that the contents of the document which bore his signature were genuine,” he said.

He said the MACC had in fact taken 10 samples of Najib’s signature in preparation of the issue of forgery being raised.

“It was not sent for examination because no allegation arose,” he added.

Sithambaram said the defence later expressed surprise when the documents were served to them, indicating they were not authentic.

The prosecution is required to serve the documents for the defence team to prepare their case.

Sithambaram said the defence did not indicate the issue of forgery of documents when Najib submitted his proposed defence as required under Section 62 of the MACC Act.

He said Najib also did not take steps to lodge a police report on the alleged forgery.

“Finally, the defence did not raise the matter to the prosecution witness during cross-examination,” he said.

Sithambaram said the prosecution need not call its expert because it had direct evidence that Najib’s signature on the documents was genuine.

“SRC chairman Ismee Ismail testified that the signature on the shareholders’ documents was Najib’s and he and the board acted on it,” he said.

Sithambaram said the application by the defence was done in bad faith to put the prosecution at a disadvantage.

“Justice is not only for the accused but for the state (which is prosecuting the case),” he added.

He said it was also procedurally wrong for the prosecution to reopen its case when the accused had been told to enter his defence.

Najib’s lawyer Harvinderjit Singh said in a criminal trial the burden of proof was always on the prosecution.

“The prosecution is trying to stop the accused from tendering evidence in his defence,” he said.

Harvinderjit said the expert evidence was admissible, even if the prosecution was claiming it as an afterthought.

“It is for the court to decide on the weight of the evidence but it is definitely admissible in law,” he added.

Harvinderjit said the prosecution could not positively identify Najib’s signature and as such, the application to bring the expert must be allowed.

Najib, who is also Pekan MP, is accused of abusing his power as prime minister by giving government guarantees on SRC International’s RM4 billion loan from Retirement Fund Inc.

He is also charged with three counts of money laundering and three counts of criminal breach of trust in the transfer of RM42 million to his accounts from the former 1MDB unit.

Submission before judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali is adjourned to tomorrow.