The recent allegation by Sarawak Report that Muhammad Shafee Abdullah received RM9.5 million from Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in two tranches, on 11.9.2013 and on 17.2.2014, less than a month before the Court of Appeal allowed the prosecution’s appeal in Sodomy 2 against Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, which was led by Shafee on 7.3.2014, is a most serious one.
I note at least two police reports have been lodged over the matter by PKR and Bersatu respectively and the authorities are urged to thoroughly investigate the matter.
Shafee was appointed as an advocate to act on behalf of the Government to lead the prosecution in the said appeal pursuant to section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code despite protests against such appointment then on the ground that the Attorney General’s Chambers was well equipped with able Deputy Public Prosecutors for the job and that, as such, Shafee’s said appointment was a waste of public funds.
The said section 379 states,
“379. Employment of advocate
With the permission in writing of the Public Prosecutor an advocate may be employed on behalf of the Government to conduct any criminal prosecution or inquiry, or to appear on any criminal appeal or point of law reserved on behalf of the Public Prosecutor. The advocate shall be paid out of the public funds such remuneration as may be sanctioned by the Minister of Finance and while conducting such prosecution or inquiry, or appearing on such criminal appeal or point of law reserved, shall be deemed to be a “public servant”.
It is clear that the said provision only allows for Shafee to be appointed for a specific task and that his remuneration for the same must be sanctioned by the Minister of Finance from public funds.
The said allegation of Sarawak Report suggests Shafee may not have been remunerated according to the strict provisions of the said section 379 but was instead, paid from an account belonging to Najib himself. In other words, the said allegation insinuates that the said RM9.5 million, or a part of it (if it was indeed paid to Shafee) may have been paid by Najib for Shafee’s services rendered in Sodomy 2.
This may fuel further speculation that Shafee was paid personally by Najib and not in his capacity as Finance Minister contrary to the said section 379.
In the circumstances and in the public interest, I call upon the Finance Ministry to publicly disclose Shafee’s remuneration package (pursuant to the said section 379) for Sodomy 2 which will, undoubtedly, put to rest any speculation that the said RM9.5 million was paid to Shafee and if so, for his role in Sodomy 2. The details of how much was paid to Shafee and when such payment was made for his role in Sodomy 2 would certainly rebut the said allegation of Sarawak Report to the benefit of Shafee and Najib.
Last but not least, it goes without saying that Shafee and Najib ought to take immediate legal action against Sarawak Report to clear their names of such an allegation and to stop further publication of the same by way of injunction as it is important to quash all negative connotations as a result of the same.