Ad-hoc prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram said Hazem’s evidence falls under Section 32(1)(b) of the Evidence Act and that the prosecution relied on the provision.

He added that the statement, made by fugitive businessman Low Taek Jho (Jho Low) to Hazem, was made in the ordinary course of business.

The provision stated that statements, be it written or oral, on facts made by a person who is dead, or cannot be produced before the court, is deemed relevant.

“The defence had accepted the facts that Jho Low, Jasmine and Terence cannot be found and charges were brought against them, in absentia.

“The investigation officer will testify later that there were attempts made to look for them but she could not find them,” Sri Ram said.

Low, former 1MDB general counsel Jasmine Loo Ai Swan and executive director Terence Geh Choh Heng were charged in absentia two years ago, for criminal breach of trust and money laundering.

Sri Ram also cited a Federal Court ruling in 2011, where the apex court said the statutory provision in the Evidence Act is “to provide exceptions to the common law rule against the reception of hearsay evidence”.

“If we cannot show that our case comes under Section 32(1)(b) of the Evidence Act, then we will concede. I give my word to counsel,” he said, referring to Najib’s lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah.

In response, Shafee said that the defence will submit further on Section 32(1)(b) that was raised by Sri Ram on Thursday.

The defence had contended that Hazem’s written testimony contained hearsay elements and it should not be allowed to be tendered as evidence.

Shafee further said Hazem made claims that Low purportedly told him that 1MDB was set up to assist Umno in business through strategic investments.

The hearing continues before High Court judge Collin Lawrence Sequerah.

Najib was slapped with 25 charges for abuse of power and money laundering over alleged 1MDB funds amounting to RM2.28 billion deposited in his AmBank accounts between February 2011 and December 2014.