Now, the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board is under scrutiny

 

If the image of the MACC is on a free fall, the reputation of its Anti-Corruption Advisory Board (ACAB) is in a tail-spin.

The exoneration of its chief, Azam Baki, by the ACAB through its chairperson Abu Zahar Ujang (above) over the issues of share trading has brought to the fore the frailties and weaknesses in the system.

Abu Zahar’s acceptance of Azam’s explanation last Wednesday that he allowed his brother to use his account resulted in scorn being poured on both for belittling the intelligence of the people.

On Saturday, six ACAB members provided further aggravation by disassociating themselves with the statement made by Abu Zahar.

Abu Zahar’s so-called tell-all press conference was held on Wednesday and it took a full three days for the six members to disavow their agreement with Abu Zahar’s statement.

To recap, this is what Malaysiakini reported on Wednesday: “Abu Zahar Ujang said Azam Baki had appeared before the board on Nov 24 to explain himself.

“Abu Zahar said they (emphasis is writer’s: it denotes collectively) were satisfied with Azam’s explanation that he had neither pecuniary interest nor conflict of interest in the acquisition of those shares.”

This means all six members of the ACAB had met Azam and listened to his explanations. Yet, no one questioned him or told him about the perils or the law on the use of proxies being used in share trading.

MACC chief Azam Baki

In short, all six and Abu Zahar accepted Azam’s infamous lines - “my brother used my name” and “I have done no wrong.”

Didn’t any of them ever caution Azam that he had breached the law by allowing his account to be used by a third party?

The ACAB board members are no ordinary Joes. They include people who have at one time or the other, sat (and are still sitting) on boards of companies and are well-versed with the law.

Reading the statement by the six in totality, they make no mention of the Nov 24 meeting. Can it be inferred that they said little at the meeting and neither did they ask any questions?

Did their silence mean consent? Did Abu Zahar infer that since no one wanted to say anything, (we can only assume) he took it that he could speak on their behalf?

Were they merely 'yes men'?

Now, to come after three days and claiming “we are not party to the statement” appears to be an afterthought because of the continuous criticism and by various parties in the media.

Surely, an immediate response to rebut Abu Zahar’s claim would have been the perfect riposte but it did not happen. Instead, they dilly-dallied until the heat became unbearable.

Were they merely “yes men” on the board and took the “we have no questions” stance? Were they merely making up the numbers and one man made the decision for all of them?

They met and listened to Azam on Nov 24 – about 45 days ago. In between, did not feel uneasy that they had not sought the truth?

No number of statements, explanations and excuses are going to placate an angry public who are simply angry and disgusted with the turn of events.

Looking at the situation in totality, it can only be said that there was a futile attempt from the start to cover up this shameful episode and the ACAB members were party to this – willingly or otherwise.

Their role as members of the board is no longer tenable. It also shows the efficacy, more the lack of it. 

It exposes the quality of oversight bodies whose membership includes politically-connected persons.

Heads have to roll and efforts must be made to strengthen the MACC management. 

What is immediately needed is a set of board members with integrity and have impeccable qualities and track records.

Otherwise, a revamp or reorganisation or any change by any other name will be an exercise in futility. - Mkini