MACC review – Walter Sandosam

The recent decision by the Attorney General (AG) on the three investigation files involving the prime minister has elicited varied responses from various quarters.

In the midst of the announcements and responses from different quarters, chaos and confusion has arisen in the minds of the public at large. The merits, or demerits, of the decision are not on debate in this article.

Statements have been issued by two different government institutions which appear to be in conflict and perceived as, correctly or incorrectly, questioning the authority invested in these bodies by the Federal Constitution and/or Acts of Parliament.

The AG has correctly pointed out that any bodies formed to question any decision by the AG would be against Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution. This is currently a statement of fact which some quarters have their views on.

The MACC chief commissioner has reaffirmed this by unequivocally stating that “These powers (of the AG) are absolute and cannot be challenged by any authority”. He is further quoted as saying "that the MACC is in no way challenging the AG". That is as clear as crystal with regard to the relationship between these institutions tasked to perform different activities for the benefit of the public.

The question that begs asking is why all this fuss and unwarranted emotionalism with statements having to be issued? Perhaps a bit of clarification will help shed some light.

MACC was established via the MACC Act 2009 as an independent commission. It adopted the model of Hong Kong's independent anti-corruption commission to create five independent bodies. The establishment of these independent oversight bodies is recognised by the international community especially the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) too.

The MACC is the only government institution that currently has five oversight bodies comprising independent members of the public appointed by the Yang di Pertuan Agong or the prime minister.

The formation of the MACC in 2009 was accompanied by the establishment of these oversight bodies which monitor the activities of the MACC. The five bodies are the Special Committee on Corruption which consists of seven members of parliament, the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board, the Complaints Committee, Operations Review Panel and the Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel.

The appointments are for a maximum tenure of six years to ensure entry of new faces and as a control mechanism to maintain independence.

Of specific reference in the recent spate of events is the Operations Review Panel. (Panel Penilaian Operasi–PPO). What is the purview and functionalities of this panel? What are their boundaries? As a person who had the privilege to serve on this Panel, it is appropriate to state the following;

Based on the 2014 MACC Annual Report, between 2009-2014, the PPO had recommended to the MACC to further investigate 64 cases which were considered as ’no merit for prosecution’ by the Public Prosecutor. Out of this number, eight were reconsidered as having merit and were brought to court eventually. The courts’ decisions are inconsequential in this matter.

The above excerpt serves to highlight due process and sequencing of investigation cases before a file is deemed closed. The MACC is not allowed to close any file that has been opened without first obtaining the clearance of the PPO. This is the control mechanism to ensure that files once open are not closed due to pressure from any quarter(s). The MACC has duly given credence to this process.

The PPO as well as the MACC may open itself to litigation if this process is short circuited just because an investigation involves high profile figures. Precedents have been set and this is the standard operating procedure followed diligently since the establishment of the MACC.
 
There is no interference with the AG’s absolute discretion on prosecution. It will be a sad day for justice if exceptions are made.

We all have our duties to perform and have to execute them diligently respecting the laws of the land and the parameters of our responsibilities. It is never wrong to do what is right.

As a practicing Christian, I hold these values close to my heart as I am sure those of other faiths also do in discharging their duties. We are responsible to our Creator in the hereafter if we deviate or compromise.

There should be calm and due respect for the law in our lives so we can function effectively. Unsubstantiated perceptions and innuendos are destructive. – February 2, 2016.

* Walter Sandosam reads The Malaysian Insider.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer, organisation or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.