PUTRAJAYA, July 3 — The Court of Appeal has scheduled September 4 to deliver its decision on the appeals filed by former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and his son, Datuk Mohd Nazifuddin, who are seeking to halt bankruptcy proceedings against them.

A three-member bench consisting of Datuk Dr Alwi Abdul Wahab, Datuk Dr Shahnaz Sulaiman, and Datuk Ong Chee Kwan reserved its judgment today. This followed oral submissions from the appellants’ counsel, Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, and Senior Revenue Counsel Norhisham Ahmad, representing the Inland Revenue Board (IRB).

Najib and Nazifuddin are appealing against a High Court ruling on November 17, 2025, which rejected their application to stay the bankruptcy actions. They are seeking the freeze pending the outcome of their appeals before the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (SCIT), where they are contesting additional tax assessments levied by the IRB.

The ongoing bankruptcy proceedings stem from summary judgments obtained by the IRB against the duo over unpaid tax arrears from the assessment years 2011 to 2017. The tax authority is looking to recover RM1.69 billion from Najib and RM37.6 million from Nazifuddin. Their previous appeals against the summary judgments were dismissed by both the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court, leading to the issuance of bankruptcy notices.

Their initial applications to stay the bankruptcy proceedings were dismissed by High Court Deputy Registrar Kamarul Aris Kamalluddin on July 29, 2024. A subsequent appeal to the High Court was also unsuccessful, leading to the current proceedings before the Court of Appeal.

During today’s hearing, Muhammad Shafee argued that special circumstances justify a stay, given that the SCIT appeals challenging the core tax assessments remain unresolved. He noted that Najib’s SCIT hearing is set for September, while Nazifuddin’s case is scheduled for October. Shafee contended that the outcome of these tax tribunal appeals is decisive for their liability, and refusing a stay would effectively render those appeals nugatory while causing irreparable harm to Najib’s financial standing.

In response, Norhisham argued that under the Income Tax Act 1967, tax liabilities must be settled as a prerequisite, regardless of any pending appeals. He maintained that no unique circumstances exist to warrant a stay, asserting that the law strictly requires payment irrespective of the ongoing appellate proceedings before the SCIT.CIT.