Najib has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and said his country will cooperate with international investigations into the fund, the debt load of which is estimated at $4.8 billion.

Malaysia's Prime Minister Najib Razak claimed he is not a public officer in an attempt to quash allegations that he abused his powers to obstruct probes that sought links between his personal bank accounts and the scandal-hit 1MDB fund. 

In March 2016, a lawsuit was filed against Najib that alleged he used his authoritative powers to hinder investigations into his connection to 1Malaysia Development Berhad, the state-owned investment fund embroiled in a worldwide money laundering probe. The suit related to the remittance of RM2.6 billion ($583.3 million) and RM42 million into Najib's personal accounts, among others.

1MDB is the subject of money laundering investigations in at least six countries, including Switzerland, Singapore and the US. International investigators believe associates of Najib siphoned billions of dollars from the fund, which the then-deputy prime minister established in 2009 and oversaw through his chairmanship of an advisory board. Najib has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and said his country will cooperate with international investigations into the fund, the debt load of which is estimated at $4.8 billion.

In a bid to quash allegations that he is connected to dirty money, Najib's lawyer, Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun, said his client is a member of the administration, and based on Article 160 (2) of the Federal Constitution, members of the administration are excluded from the public services category.

When speaking to reporters outside the High Court, Hafarizam reportedly argued that there is a difference between public services, public office, public servants and members of administration. 

“[Najib's lead counsel] Tan Sri Cecil Abraham made the argument that members of administration are ministers, deputy ministers and political secretaries, which, therefore, includes prime ministers and deputy prime ministers,” Hafarizam said, according to numerous local news reports.

He reportedly added that Abraham said the requirements of the tort of misfeasance – the wrongful exercise of lawful authority, as alleged in the lawsuit – were absent. 

“We could not find any ingredient that Najib is a public officer; that he had committed an act that had caused injury; and that the act by Najib was done with malice,” Hafarizam reportedly said. 

He also reportedly claimed that the lawsuit failed to spell out how Najib used his powers to cause “injury” to the claimants.

“According to Order 18, Rule 7, of the Rules of Courts 2012, when you bring a claim, you have to particularise your facts and particulars,” he reportedly said. 

He reportedly continued: “It is our argument that in the statement of the claim, the plaintiffs have not particularised how Najib used his power to cause injury to [the claimants] Tun Mahathir, Datuk Hassan, and Anina Saadudin. We say on that, the suit should be struck out due to lack of particulars.”

Mahathir, Hassan and Saadudin are said to be seeking exemplary and aggravated damages of RM2.6 billion and RM42 million.

The court has reportedly scheduled its judgement to an unfixed date.

Last month, opposition Malaysian MP Tony Pua filed a civil lawsuit against Najib and his government that also accused him of wrongly exercising his lawful authority. 

The 110-page claim filed in a Kuala Lumpur court by Pua detailed how $731 million that allegedly originated from 1MDB was transferred into Najib's personal bank accounts.