It has come to my knowledge that a former anti-corruption agency officer had lodged a report with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in January 2016 against the then Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamad Apandi Ali for clearing the then Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak of corruption charges but to date, no action had been taken.
This former anti-corruption agency officer had lodged a report with the MACC against Apandi after he cleared Najib of corruption charges which had been recommended by the MACC and agreed upon by the former Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail for the Penal Code offence of criminal misappropriation of public funds.
His report had been accepted by the MACC and registered. Unfortunately it was never fully investigated by the MACC.
This in itself is an offence under section 217 Penal Code which says that, any public servant who is statutorily bound to perform a public duty and fails to do so intending to protect or save any person from punishment or forfeiture of property commits an offence. And Section 7 of the MACC Act makes it a statutory duty for any MACC officer to receive any report of the commission of an offence and investigate such report.
This former anti-corruption agency officer said that Apandi’s press conference on 26th January 2016 in his capacity as Attorney-General clearing Najib of any corruption offence, which was not only against the recommendation of the MACC but also tantamount to revoking the decision of former Attorney-General Gani Patail, amounted to a gross abuse of power and conflict of interest since the very person he cleared of the corruption charges was the same person who appointed him to the office of AG.
It had caused huge embarrassment to the legal fraternity and the rule of law in Malaysia in the eyes of the world.
On 14th May 2018, five days after the historic 14th General Election decision, Mahathir informed the media that Apandi had been told to take leave and would be temporarily replaced by the Solicitor-General.
Asked whether Apandi was being investigated, the Prime Minister said a police report must first be lodged before an investigation could be done.
Mahathir said: “At this moment, we have yet to lodge a formal report, although there are a lot of allegations made against Apandi,”
However, no action had been taken on the report by this anti-corruption agency official against Apandi in January 2016.
On 19th May 2018, this anti-corruption officer had written to the MACC Chief Commissioner, Datuk Seri Shukri Abdull about his MACC report in January 2016 against Najib and Apandi (ADUAN SPRM/INFO/2016/002316).
Among other criminal acts both Najib and Apandi had committed was the offence under Section 16 MACC Act as Najib offering the post of AG to Apandi, and Apandi accepting the post of AG, as an inducement to clear Najib of corruption charges and to stop further investigation against him.
Under the law, gratification includes any office or employment and Apandi did accept the post of AG and subsequently cleared Najib of all corruption offences.
May be when the new MACC chief, Latheeya Koya, appears before the parliamentary Special Select Committee on Major Public Appointments on June 20 to share her vision and mission to fight corruption, she could throw some light on whether the MACC would re-open investigation into Apandi.
Under the doctrine of cabinet collective responsibility, it can be argued that all ministers of Najib’s cabinet were collectively responsible for such illegal and unconstitutional removal and appointment designed to cover up the corrupt acts of the then Prime Minister.
The removal and appointment are clearly tainted by corruption and illegal practices, and as such each and every member of the cabinet were complicit to the action of Najib and were criminally liable.
For this reason, the anti-corruption agency officer recommended that all ministers should also be charged for abetment of Najib’s act which was detrimental to parliamentary practice.