The Attorney-General has explained that he did not appeal against the decision of the High Court acquitting Dr Ling Liong Sik because the decision was based on findings of fact.
Firstly, let me say at the outset that this is a weak excuse. It is common for the prosecution to appeal even where there are findings of fact against them in any given case. It is open for any appellant to argue on appeal that a trial judge was wrong in his assessment of the facts of any particular case for many reasons and appeals have been allowed in such cases as well.
But more important is what the AG then is reported to have said. He is quoted as saying “When your main witness says he is not cheated, what case do we have?”
This is strange.
Didn’t the police interview its main witness during investigations before Dr Ling was charged? Didn’t the Attorney-General study the statement of his main witness before making a decision to charge Dr Ling? Didn’t the prosecuting team re-read its main witness’s statement again before the start of the trial and during the course of the trial?
And if Dr Mahathir Mohamad was this main witness, why wasn’t he called by the prosecution during the trial as a prosecution witness? Why was he called as a witness by the defence instead? And even until this stage, didn’t the prosecution know what he would say?
It is hard to believe that the AG would have gone all the way with the prosecution especially in such a high profile case if he knew that the main witness would say he was not cheated.
But the AG did. So what happened?
The AG must tell us. Was a statement recorded from the main witness in this case? If yes, did this main witness say in that statement that he was cheated? If he didn’t and the AG knew from the start that the main witness was not going to say he was cheated, then why was Dr Ling charged?
Of course, the other side of it is even more serious. If indeed a statement was recorded from the main witness and he did he say he was cheated, did he later change his story at the trial? Did he contradict himself? If so, what has the Attorney-General done about it?