A-G: Khir Toyo’s ‘scapegoat’ remark close to court contempt

KUALA LUMPUR, June 1 — Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail denied today there was any political interference in Dr Mohamed Khir Toyo’s corruption conviction and warned the former Selangor Mentri Besar he was dangerously close to being cited for contempt of court with his “scapegoat” remark. 

Dr Khir (picture) took to his blog yesterday where he maintained his innocence in the federal charge over his relatively cheap multi-million ringgit Balinese-styled mansion in Shah Alam, and suggested he was being made a scapegoat for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s anti-corruption drive. 

“I would like to stress that there has never been any form of political interference on me,” Abdul Gani, who is Attorney-General (A-G), said in a statement, adding that his office has always been independent and will continue to function without bias. 

“The charges against Khir Toyo were based on concrete evidence and not on political factors to make Khir Toyo a ‘scapoegoat’,” he added. 

He said he had made the decision to prosecute the Umno man based on testimony obtained from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) investigations and that the criminal breach of trust (CBT) charge, under the Penal Code, was based on the existing laws then. 

“I would also like to stress that the Prime Minister had never interfered in any charges against anyone,” he added. 

Dr Khir was found guilty of illegally obtaining for himself and his wife two lots of land and a house at No. 8 and 10, Jalan Suasa 7/1L in Shah Alam from Ditamas Sdn Bhd through its director Datuk Shamsuddin Hayroni. 

The property was purchased for RM3.5 million although Ditamas had bought it for RM6.5 million on December 23, 2004. 

The Court of Appeal ruled on May 30 to uphold the Shah Alam High Court’s 2011 decision in convicting Dr Khir of corruption in buying a luxury home and land in 2007, but granted the Umno member a stay of execution of his 12-month jail sentence pending his appeal to the Federal Court. 

“I don’t care anymore if a decision was made to imprison me as a symbol to show that Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Razak’s administration is transparent and wants to fight corruption,” Dr Khir wrote on his blog www.drkhir.com a day later. 

The government’s top lawyer told Dr Khir that he was very close to acting in contempt of the court by claiming, in his blog post, that the three Appeals Court judges who had presided over his case had failed to determine if the benchmark for the purchase was sufficient reciprocation. 

“Khir Toyo’s statement is close to the limits of contempt of court and does not respect his own panel of lawyers,” Abdul Gani said. 

He pointed out in his 10-page statement that the Appeals Court judges had thoroughly scrutinised the testimony before arriving at their judgment and had also answered the defendent’s question, saying the “market price” is not the only yardstick but that they should also consider the “circumstances” to measure the value of the property Dr Khir had bought off Ditamas Sdn Bhd director Datuk Shamsuddin Hayroni while in office. 

“Just because the judges in the Court of Appeal did not accept Khir Toyo’s argument does not mean matter was not answered. 

“As such, Khir Toyo should not cloud the facts of this case by accusing the judges did not mention the benchmark to be used, when he had been proven to have used his position to get or purchase the property at a price he knew was wholly unreasonable from its owner,” Abdul Gani said. 

The A-G also replied to Dr Khir that the CBT charge under Section 165 of the Penal Code was a prescribed offence under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997, which was the existing law then, and dealt with government officials who received or obtained something from someone he knew to have official business with him without sufficient reciprocation. 

He said the provision of the law was also categorised as a corruption offence because it was related to the indirect abuse of power towards an individual. 

He pointed out that the maximum penalty upon conviction under Section 165 of the Penal Code was two years’ imprisonment or a fine or both, which was far lighter than the maximum penalty under the MACC Act 2009, which prescribes a jail term of up to 20 years. 

“By right, Khir Toyo should be careful and smart in making his allegations and not baseless allegations. 

“Rather than pointing fingers at anyone over any purported conspiracy or pressure, the best step for Khir Toyo would be to prepare his defence for his appeal at the Federal Court,” Abdul Gani said.