Has the fight against corruption been compromised?

 

From Walter Sandosam

The recent acquittal of Ahmad Zahid Hamidi from corruption charges related to the foreign visa system (VLN) by the Court of Appeal, pursuant to the prosecution’s withdrawal of its appeal, has attracted comments from some quarters.

Among them is the claim, or accusation, that the government is backsliding on its commitment to eradicate corruption, which was the battle cry that swept the opposition into power in 2018.

The most vocal of them has been a former chief commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), under whose watch the investigations and subsequent charging of Zahid took place.

Comments have been passed that Zahid is the closest political ally of the prime minister, and all his corruption charges have been dropped by the attorney-general.

The ex-MACC chief goes on to say that the decision to charge Zahid in the VLN case was thorough – the decision to recommend charges was based on a comprehensive and meticulous investigation, with every angle looked into.

It is further contended that what is more damaging is that “this event is a severe blow to the fight against corruption in Malaysia” and “fundamentally damages our reputation regionally and globally”.

In addition, it is claimed that the decision undermines the rule of law by suggesting unequal treatment under the law.

Do these viewpoints have any merit in law or are they just mischievous?

To appreciate the extent of these rather damaging views, one has to read the High Court’s decision on this matter, given that the AG had decided not to proceed after considering the trial judge’s grounds of judgment and two representations sent on Zahid’s behalf.

In the grounds for judgment, the trial judge made several important findings of fact to support his ruling.

What stands out in this episode is that the deputy public prosecutor claimed that the “evidence revealed that the contracts were awarded before Zahid became home minister. In addition, extensions of contracts to the service provider had followed all prescribed procedures”.

Given this scenario, has the public been misled as to the allegations against Zahid, and by whom?

Surely, investigations ought to have detected the difference between the date one takes office and the dates on which allegedly corrupt deeds were done. Dates do not lie and are a matter of public record.

The ex-MACC chief’s comments have inflicted a lot of collateral damage on the institutions of the AG and judiciary in sieving through the evidence and establishing the chain of events.

There is also the broadside on the government in its posture to fight corruption.

An explanation was called for by the ex-MACC chief, whose deputy, a rank-and-file member, now serves as the MACC chief.

The MACC Act 2009 was enacted primarily to address the perception that the then Anti-Corruption Agency was pandering to political influence.

To strengthen independence, oversight panels were formed, comprising independent members from the public realm.

This writer served in the initial cohort till 2016.

MACC was fortified to meet concerns.

The recent turn of events has put the country’s institutional framework under the spotlight, unfortunately negatively, in its fight against corruption.

The concerns raised by the ex-MACC chief should be addressed to put things in order, more so as the current MACC chief served under her watch, and subsequently succeeded her.

The nagging question is whether certain institutions have been weaponised, which goes against the grain of democracy. If so, only lip service is being paid in combating corruption. - FMT

Walter Sandosam is a past member of MACC’s independent operations review panel.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.