Which Version Of Sabah Mining Scandal Is More Telling

---

 


In response to Beluran MP Ronald Kiandee on the issue of the alleged Sabah mining scandal, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim dropped a bombshell in the Dewan Rakyat on Aug 19.
Anwar said that the MACC was only able to charge two assemblypersons - Andi Suryady Bandy (Tanjung Batu) and Yusof Yacob (Sindumin).
To be fair to the prime minister, he seemed to be parroting the ready-made answer prepared by MACC.
As a former deputy minister of law who used to answer questions regarding the MACC’s affairs in Parliament, I must say that not all the prepared answers by any government agency - MACC included - have to be strictly adhered to by any minister, unless they dealt with statistics and established government policies.
The way I see it, the questions posed by the Beluran MP contained both legal and political issues. If I were to answer such questions, I would have definitely answered them differently.
Reply reflects anti-corruption efforts
Anyway, Anwar tried to justify his parliamentary reply by relying, inter alia, on the law of evidence, ie the allegations against the other six run afoul of the rules against hearsay.
In my view, this was a hugely risky and feeble response. Assuming such an answer was in fact prepared or proposed by MACC, Anwar had the final say to either reject or modify such an answer without being seen to be belittling the issue at hand.
It is not clear whether Anwar realised that his aforesaid justification may be seen to be ludicrous or even laughable. The reply, with due respect, smacked of his government’s lackadaisical attitude in wiping out corruption.
It is a trite law that the rules against hearsay are always subject to a plethora of legally recognised exceptions, which are, inter alia, embedded in Section 32 of our Evidence Act 1950.
Be that as it may, the hearsay rule should not have been easily highlighted or treated as if it were cast in stone.
Anwar also remarked that only cases that are substantive in facts and law will be referred for prosecution. He added that if they are not substantive and only rely on a video, the case cannot proceed.
Based on his answer, it is implied that the MACC had not submitted its full investigation papers (IP) to the prosecution.
With due respect, this answer is indeed baffling because the MACC - being the investigating agency - seemed to possess the sole power to determine the weakness or strength of the IP instead of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).
Assuming, having received the IP from the MACC, the AGC found the evidence fragile or that there were missing links here and there, the AGC could still return the IP and ask the MACC to plug the loopholes, as happened in the recent case involving the death of Zara Qairina Mahathir.
Finally, Anwar also said that from his own experience, recordings and videos alone are not sufficient without supporting facts and legal grounds.
With the greatest respect, the prime minister may have his own experience in court, having been indicted for several crimes in the past.
Regrettably, he was bestowed with such legal experience not as a lawyer who conducted the trial but as an accused person who faced criminal charges and trials. Needless to say, the two experiences are poles apart.
Chilling effect
The alleged Sabah mining scandal reared its ugly head for the first time when a whistleblower - Albert Tei - exposed it by bravely blowing the lid off the aforesaid criminal impropriety.
Despite being a whistleblower, Tei was nonetheless charged with two Gabungan Rakyat Sabah (GRS) assemblypersons.
Truth be told, when a whistleblower faces criminal indictment for boldly exposing corrupt practices, it definitely sends a wrong signal and has chilling effects.
Worse, it would discourage or demoralise the public from assisting the government in uprooting the seeds of corruption.
Everybody knows Anwar has also been reminding the public to work with him in his attempt to wage war against corruption. In social media, I notice people - even Pakatan Harapan supporters - have started to belittle, trivialise, and even deride and mock his “reformasi” chant.
Tei was definitely unhappy with Anwar’s parliamentary reply. He told the media that he had duly handed several videos, money trails, bank records, documents, written correspondences, and specific locations to the relevant authority.
He also reiterated that the details of the alleged corruption were painstakingly compiled and cross-verified before they were handed over to the same relevant authority.
Apart from the evidence, he had also surrendered his mobile phone containing WhatsApp conversations with the assemblypersons to the MACC.
The dossier for the six assemblypersons, which Tei said was identical in format and strength to the two who were charged, was also submitted to the authority.
Tei justifiably believed that he had risked his life, his future, and even his family’s safety by bringing forward the said dossier. It is difficult not to empathise with his plight.
Now, we - the rakyat - are apparently faced with two versions of this issue - Anwar’s and Tei’s. Which version seems to be convincing?
Perhaps the upcoming Sabah state election will provide us with the answers. - Mkini
HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy law minister.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---