©The Malaysian Insider (Used by permission)
Analysis by The Malaysian Insider
KUALA LUMPUR, July 27 – Malaysia’s much–hyped fight against graft is headed nowhere unless there is a seismic shift in the competence of the Malaysian Anti–Corruption Commission (MACC) and the Attorney–General’s Chambers.
Today’s acquittal of former Commercial Crime Director Datuk Ramli Yusoff by the Sessions Court in Kota Kinabalu confirms what has become an all–too–familiar outcome for both agencies: big case ending in humiliating defeat.
Today’s acquittal of former Commercial Crime Director Datuk Ramli Yusoff by the Sessions Court in Kota Kinabalu confirms what has become an all–too–familiar outcome for both agencies: big case ending in humiliating defeat.
Ramli was charged with using police aircraft to view two pieces of property in which his real estate company had an interest. The prosecution, represented by MACC deputy public prosecutors Kevin Morais and Joyce Blasius, called 75 witnesses to make their case.
But this is what Sessions Court Judge Supang Lian had to say: “The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case and the accused deserves to be acquitted and discharged.’’
Another big case, another resounding defeat in the court room.
It has happened before in the corruption trials involving Tan Sri Eric Chia, Datuk Saidin Thamby, Datuk Mohd Mirza Taiyub and several other high–profile cases.
Sometimes, the judges have been charitable, remarking only that the prosecution did not manage to meet its burden of proof. At times, comments from the Bench have provided a peek into the preparedness of the MACC and its predecessor, the ACA and the prosecutors from the AG’s Chambers.
After acquitting former Tourism Ministry director–general Mirza Taiyub of accepting dental treatment without consideration, the judge noted that the prosecution had been made in bad faith and the case was soft.
After acquitting former Perwaja boss Eric Chia of graft, the judge painted a damning picture of incompetence on the part of the prosecutors, noting that they had not called key witnesses and did not proffer the charges well.
Several conclusions can be reached after studying the dismal record that the ACA/MACC and the AG Chambers have had in obtaining convictions in high–profile corruption cases.
Firstly, the quality of investigation and collection of evidence by the graft busters must be so poor that in many cases, the accused persons are let off without even the defence being called.
Secondly, officials in the AG’s Chambers have little clue on what is expected of the evidence they present in the courts and are simply pushing through cases to please the enforcement agencies or their political masters.
Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that the AG’s Chambers has lost a string of high–profile criminal cases, suggesting that weakness in this government agency is not limited to one branch but is a systemic failure.
Based on their recent track record, do both these organisations have the ability to lead in the battle against graft in Malaysia? No.
Based on their recent track record, you would have to say that the ACA/MACC and the AG’s Chambers have failed to meet a key component of their KPIs: making their cases count in court.
But this is what Sessions Court Judge Supang Lian had to say: “The prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case and the accused deserves to be acquitted and discharged.’’
Another big case, another resounding defeat in the court room.
It has happened before in the corruption trials involving Tan Sri Eric Chia, Datuk Saidin Thamby, Datuk Mohd Mirza Taiyub and several other high–profile cases.
Sometimes, the judges have been charitable, remarking only that the prosecution did not manage to meet its burden of proof. At times, comments from the Bench have provided a peek into the preparedness of the MACC and its predecessor, the ACA and the prosecutors from the AG’s Chambers.
After acquitting former Tourism Ministry director–general Mirza Taiyub of accepting dental treatment without consideration, the judge noted that the prosecution had been made in bad faith and the case was soft.
After acquitting former Perwaja boss Eric Chia of graft, the judge painted a damning picture of incompetence on the part of the prosecutors, noting that they had not called key witnesses and did not proffer the charges well.
Several conclusions can be reached after studying the dismal record that the ACA/MACC and the AG Chambers have had in obtaining convictions in high–profile corruption cases.
Firstly, the quality of investigation and collection of evidence by the graft busters must be so poor that in many cases, the accused persons are let off without even the defence being called.
Secondly, officials in the AG’s Chambers have little clue on what is expected of the evidence they present in the courts and are simply pushing through cases to please the enforcement agencies or their political masters.
Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that the AG’s Chambers has lost a string of high–profile criminal cases, suggesting that weakness in this government agency is not limited to one branch but is a systemic failure.
Based on their recent track record, do both these organisations have the ability to lead in the battle against graft in Malaysia? No.
Based on their recent track record, you would have to say that the ACA/MACC and the AG’s Chambers have failed to meet a key component of their KPIs: making their cases count in court.