On 20 June, the Kuala Lumpur High Court granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) to former Prime Minister Najib Razak over three money laundering charges involving RM27m from SRC International Sdn Bhd.
This came after Najib’s lawyer argued that it was unjust to keep his client in limbo without a confirmed trial date, especially since the prosecution could not specify when they would be able to compile the exhibits from the earlier SRC trial.
The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center)demands that the Attorney General’s Chambers provide a public explanation for this latest failure to bring a criminal case to trial, address its apparent internal weaknesses, and commit to refiling this case as well as other cases where political figures have been granted DNAAs.
Where is the accountability?
In recent years, the pattern of flawed prosecutions involving political figures that have ended in a DNAA forces several urgent questions: what is behind this apparently deep-rooted institutional incompetence within the prosecutorial office and why have there been no public attempts to remedy this?
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
It bears repeating that these are not normal criminal cases – they implicate corruption involving some of the most powerful political figures in the country, and as such, must be treated with the highest priority.
It is inexcusable that DNAAs are granted on the basis that the Attorney General’s Chambers simply fails to adhere to basic procedures, which are part of any criminal prosecution.
C4 Center, alongside numerous other civil society organisations, elected representatives, and members of the public, have countless times demanded accountability from the chambers for these procedural failures that have resulted in DNAAs.
Despite this, the chambers has not sufficiently responded and there have been no public attempts to address these prosecutorial failures.
This lack of accountability only serves to deepen public distrust, erode confidence in the rule of law, and reinforce the perception that justice in Malaysia is neither independent nor equal.
In this latest DNAA case, High Court judge Justice K Muniandy stated that “there is nothing to show that the prosecution is able to proceed with the case for the time being, or proceed within a reasonable amount of time”.
No witness testimony had been pursued since the case was first brought in 2019.
The judge also stated that the deputy public prosecutor did not object when asked if a granting of a DNAA to Najib would prejudice the prosecution.
These facts present a stunning rebuke of the prosecution’s ability to pursue cases. Not only were they simply not prepared for a case that has been in progress for six years, they did not even object to the DNAA.
C4 Center demands that the Attorney General’s Chambers publicly commits to refiling the charges for this present case, as well as other cases where political figures have received a DNAA, including:
- Najib Razak and Irwan Serigar Abdullah: (They were) granted a DNAA for six criminal breach of trust charges involving the misuse of RM6.6bn in government funds due to the prosecution having failed to deliver pre-trial documents as per Section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Zahid Hamidi: In the Yayasan Akalbudi case, (he was) granted DNAA for 47 charges including criminal breach of trust and money laundering, as the prosecution needed to conduct “more thorough and comprehensive investigation”.
- Najib Razak and Arul Kanda: In the 1MDB audit tampering trial, acquittals for corruption-related charges were left unchallenged after the prosecution failed to file their petitions of appeal in time.
- Lim Guan Eng: In the case of his purchase of a bungalow below market price, the prosecution applied for a DNAA almost two years after the charge, upon discovering fresh evidence.
Make public prosecutor’s office independent
This DNAA will inevitably be used to further rehabilitate Najib’s image – a task also seemingly picked up by Anwar Ibrahim himself during his Prime Ministership. Previous questionable comments made by Anwar include that Najib did not deserve to “suffer” in prison because Anwar himself had spent time in prison before, and that he “welcomed” Najib’s public apology for the 1MDB scandal having taken place when he was prime minister.
On the other hand, Anwar has also taken to attacking those he perceives as “obsessed” with Najib, even stating that those who bring up Najib are doing so to obscure their own corruption cases.
These comments were made despite public anger at Najib’s prison sentence being shortened from 12 to six years, and ongoing discussions about a potential house arrest bill that, if passed, may allow Najib to serve the remainder of his sentence from home.
Throughout his personal defence for Najib, Anwar has nonetheless maintained that the rule of law and justice system is ultimately the decision-maker for corruption cases brought before it.
This attempt to deflect is ironic, given the fact that we are presented now with a due process that does not seem to work at all. If the prosecution is neither willing nor able to even present a case against Najib, what due process and justice system is there even to speak of? Is this truly just institutional incompetence?
Exploring this issue, we are once again confronted with the fact that the attorney general (who is appointed on the binding advice of the prime minister) also holds the office of the public prosecutor. There is a line of direct influence from the prime minister to the attorney general who ultimately directs prosecutions.
Criticism of this structure has been longstanding, as there is an inherent systemic vulnerability that decisions to prosecute political figures (or not) may be influenced by the executive. Has Anwar’s outspoken sympathies for Najib influenced the conduct of the prosecution in this case?
The only way to dispel these suspicions is for the offices of the attorney general and public prosecutor’s offices to be separated – a call more pertinent now than ever.
C4 Center asks: should the people be made to accept a future where our institutions are broken beyond repair, where prosecutions are merely a circus show, and where we accept that those under scrutiny for corruption breezily walk free?
The answer is and always will be a resounding NO.
The people are fast losing trust in the “Madani” (civil and trustworthy) government’s ability to introduce reforms and sufficiently deal with corruption in the country.
Here, the government has a small opportunity to salvage some belief – only if it acts swiftly and for the public interest in addressing this matter.
However, if the Madani government sets fire to the goodwill of Malaysians just to keep themselves warm, they will have nothing to show for it but ashes. – C4 Center
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
Would congratulations be in order? Was this not expected and just waiting to be announced especially when VVIPs and wealthy and connected to some in power may be involved? Continuation of culture! Bless all