Macc Must Extend Sabah Mining Probe Beyond Whistleblower Reps

---

 
From Idris Mokhtar
Reports of a purported mining scandal in Sabah, as exposed by a news portal recently, have made for some shocking reading.
The allegations, which first surfaced in November, suggest that a businessman, claiming to be a whistleblower, had evidence of corrupt practices purportedly involving several of the state’s assemblymen.
These allegations appear to be intertwined with claims made by former Sabah Mineral Management Sdn Bhd (SMM) CEO Jontih Enggihon concerning alleged improprieties within the company.
Interestingly, SMM has since filed a lawsuit against Jontih and a businessman alleging certain wrongdoings on their part in seeking to procure mining licences for companies linked to the businessman. Jontih has in response threatened his own countersuit against SMM.
Meanwhile, it has also been reported that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has completed its investigations into the matter, apparently focused on Jontih and an unidentified businessman who also claims to be a whistleblower.
In the news reports, the purported whistleblower alleged that undisclosed sums were paid to several Sabah state legislative assembly members (Adun). The MACC said last month that it has to date recorded statements from some 18 Adun.
That is well and good, but surely the investigations cannot stop there.
In the reports, which included video clips, the purported whistleblower claimed that he represented or was associated with several companies which had applied for prospecting licences from the Sabah state government. He said payments were made to several Adun in connection with those applications.
It is unclear what role these Adun have in the approval process. Under Sabah state law, the authority to issue licences is not within the purview of the state legislative assembly and does not depend on the exercise of discretion by any Adun.
Given that the purported whistleblower has admitted to acting in the commercial interests of the various companies he represented, several other questions arise.
First, who are shareholders, chairmen, directors, company secretaries and senior officials of these companies? Is it not in the public interest that their identities be made known?
Next, what is their involvement in the alleged scandal? What role did each of them play?
Surely they were aware that their respective companies were seeking prospecting licences. Did they sanction the purported payments? Were they aware of the purpose of these payments, which appear to be bribes?
If so, then both the companies and their respective officers who were directly involved in the purported transactions may have committed offences. Have they been called up by the MACC for questioning?
Section 17A of the MACC Act 2009 provides that a company can incur “corporate liability” for the corrupt acts.
It states that a commercial organisation commits an offence if a person associated with the organisation corruptly gives, agrees to give, promises or offers to any person any gratification with an intention to obtain or retain business for the commercial organisation or an advantage in the conduct of business for the commercial organisation.
Surely, under-the-counter payments to secure prospecting licences fall within the ambit of the section.
Under the section a commercial organisation can be liable to a fine of not less than 10 times the value of the bribe or RM1 million, whichever is higher, or imprisonment for up to 20 years, or both.
The prime minister has repeatedly said he wants to root out corruption both in the public and private sectors.
That being the case, MACC, as the body set up to combat graft, must leave no stone unturned when investigating the purported scandal.
Any public servant, private corporation or individual found to be criminally involved must be brought to book, and quickly. - FMT
Idris Mohktar is a FMT reader.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---