It’s time the watchmen watch themselves

 

From Walter Sandosam

‘It’s all in the timing’ is an old adage that is best remembered by comedians. The punch line is on delivering the key words at the right time to allow the pinnacles of humour to be scaled.

The utterances by leading figures in our institutions is leaving the laymen not humoured but extremely perplexed. Who can investigate whom? How must it be done? Is there a protocol to be followed and who crafted it and when? – are legitimate questions in the pursuit of the truth

The recent statement by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission just a few days ago calling on interested parties to look at the track record of MACC since 2016 in relation to commencing investigations and its impartiality is something to reflect on.

Also, to consider is the articulation, captured in a number of dailies, by a current member of the Cabinet prior to elections when his company was ‘visited’ by MACC just a few days before the elections, “Saturday we vote. After we win the elections, we will look for Azam Baki”. To-date, there has been no follow-up on these unscheduled visits. Did the MACC abuse its power?

Such a bold statement came to nought as this was later attributed to ‘political bytes(sounds)’ and no action followed through on what many had perceived was a threat on a government officer.

Is the public considered a bunch of fools on the ramifications of such statements?

Many quarters had opined that MACC has become a political tool with selective prosecutions. This has been vehemently denied by the chief commissioner. No wonder our performance on corruption indexes is falling.

It’s all about perception, in many instances supported by trending facts, whatever Azam postulates.

It appears the final nail in the coffin of MACC’s oft self-proclaimed independence, impartiality and integrity has been driven in by no less than the Federal Court in the light of reported comments by the chief justice in relation to ‘timing’ in relation to the final appeal on a connected conviction.

Is the MACC going to take the chief justice to court for tarnishing the image of MACC for not ‘following protocol’?

More damaging is the comment ‘failure to inform (the chief justice) shows that there was a lack of bona fide on their part. So Azam, how do you personally and the MACC counter the observation of ‘bona fide’.

Is there evidence that it was done for ‘collateral purpose’. These are indeed very damaging inferences. Perhaps the chief justice has evidence on this or is it just thinking out loud.

In cases of corruption is MACC being bridled by the Constitution, or otherwise, in carrying out its expected mandate to investigate without fear or favour?

On a sidebar, the public prosecutor (PP) has also been drawn into the fray on ‘powers being exercised in good faith’. Is the PP in cohorts too with MACC and powers that be – an equally stunning inference not to mention ‘failure to follow protocol’.

If MACC can do it (investigations) to a sitting judge, what more on politicians who are now in the opposition. One must bear in mind that the MACC head is ‘just another civil servant’ and does not have immunity that judges have on removal from office.

As a member who served on two supervisory oversight committees of the MACC since the Act of 2009 to put to rest such allegations of selective prosecution and lack of impartiality, I am deeply disappointed in the dark cloud that has descended on the MACC.

Judgements, especially by the apex court, are respected. Comments offered when ruling on the judgement, especially negative ones against another institution in the ‘check and balance’ process is akin to spitting ‘into the wind’ in relation to the institutional framework of the country.

End of day, protocol followed or not, the public wants to know only one thing – what is the outcome of investigations on Justice Nazlan Ghazali. Is there merit or not? Surely figuring that out is not rocket science.

Let’s dispense with the calisthenics and verbal gymnastics. The public only wants to know the truth, ugly or pretty as it may be, on the said sum purportedly found in the account of a judge – is it bona fide or not! Everything else is a Shakesperean drama and oneupmanship.

Ads by Kiosked

Azam and the MACC should re-examine themselves in view of the humiliating comments of the chief justice . Nobody will believe the institution anymore. In this context, where is the Advisory Board of the MACC on this? - FMT

Walter Sandosam was an MACC oversight panel member.

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