Alamak! AG Accuses MACC Of ‘Leaking’!

Syed Akbar Ali

Alamak – the AG’s Chambers put out a Press Statement yesterday that requires some further explanation.  Part of it says :

“Similarly, in the case against Lim Guan Eng and Phang Li Koon, there was fresh evidence that was not previously considered.”

He reiterated that the decision to initiate or discontinue any prosecution lay with the public prosecutor.

“In this case, I kept confidential my decision until the very last minute and did not consult the investigative agency fearing it might leak and cause unnecessary alarm.”

Ok  the AG has just accused the MACC of being untrustworthy, unreliable, no integrity etc etc etc etc.

May I ask the AG if the MACC had previously “leaked” any information or secrets about this Guan Eng case? Was there a precedent which makes the AG cast doubts (not to mention the humiliation) on the MACC?  Please do answer. I hope Mr Tommy Thomas will step up to the plate on this one.

Then there is a more intriguing issue in this Press Statement by the AG.

You say you acquired “fresh evidence that was not previously considered.”

Obviously this “fresh evidence” helped you in your decision.

Where did this fresh evidence come from? How did you get it?

In the separation of powers, the Prosecutor (the AG’s Chambers) cannot get involved in investigation. That is the job of the MACC.

And the MACC of course cannot prosecute. They are only investigators.

I assume then that it was the MACC which also acquired that “fresh evidence” that the AGC is talking about.

If this “fresh evidence” was the tie breaker in the AG’s decision to withdraw the charges,  then why did the MACC – the people who would or should have found this new evidence – make that “terkejut” Press Statement?

As the investigating agency they should NOT have been “terkejut” since they would have known ahead of time that the “new evidence” would kill the prosecution.

But they still went ahead and said they were “terkejut”.

More questions than answers.