KUALA LUMPUR — Malaysia’s public prosecutors have drawn flak from analysts and observers after former prime minister Najib Razak and former treasury chief Mohd Irwan Serigar Abdullah were on Nov 27 granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) in a graft case linked to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal.
The two had been charged in 2018 with six counts of criminal breach of trust involving RM6.6 billion (S$2 billion) in government funds paid to Abu Dhabi’s state fund International Petroleum Investment Company.
Justice Muhammad Jamil Hussin said that there was an extreme delay in the case, due to the prosecution’s failure to provide the defence with crucial documents.
He said that the DNAA was granted because the prosecution did not comply with Section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates that the prosecution must provide the accused with specific documents before the trial begins.
The court decision does not preclude the possibility of the same charges being filed again.
“The DNAA order does not prejudice the prosecution’s case. The prosecution could still re-charge them again,” said Justice Muhammad Jamil.
Mr Halmie Azrie Abdul Halim, a senior analyst at political risk consultancy Vriens & Partners said the prosecution’s inability to provide the necessary documents reflects poorly on the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC).
“It’s incompetence from the AGC’s side. Six years is more than enough to share relevant documents. If they couldn’t share the documents citing the Official Secrets Act (OSA) as the reason, then the prosecution should have withdrawn the case. Now the prosecution has to re-charge, if the AGC is still inclined to do so,” he said.
Deputy public prosecutor Muhammad Saifuddin Hashim Musaimi had told the court that there were about 40 documents which have yet to be declassified under the OSA, and that the prosecution had no control over this process.
At any rate, this does not reflect well on the prosecution if there are no credible public reasons given immediately, said Mr Jerald Joseph, director of non-governmental human rights organisation Pusat Komas.
While the prosecution might have its reasons for failing to provide the defence with crucial documents in a timely manner, the public deserves to know why, he added.
“Why did they fail the public this time? Any such perceived incompetency would raise suspicions of political interference,” Mr Jerald said.
Electoral reform group Bersih’s executive director Ooi Kok Hin expressed concerns about the erosion of public trust in the AGC’s independence in the wake of the latest court decision, saying that the mishandling of such as a high-profile case despite years of preparation must be properly explained.
“We (Bersih) call on the Attorney General to publicly explain the reasons for this fumble…This helps to prevent real and perceived executive interference in high-profile cases involving senior politicians,” he added.
