The statement by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief Dzulkifli Ahmad that the MACC will not investigate 1MDB over allegations of financial improprieties as it does not want to overlap with investigations already started by the police (see: “Dzulkifli: Police, not MACC will investigate 1MDB”, FMT, 17.6.2017) needs to be further addressed as there are far reaching consequences of the MACC ceasing to investigate the matter.
In a statement on 18.6.2017, I had stated that the independence of the MACC may be compromised for its failure to investigate 1MDB on the ground that it had been decided by the relevant agencies, presumably the police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AG’s Chambers), that only the police will carry out such investigations as claimed by Dzulkifli (see: “MACC setting dangerous precedent leaving 1MDB probe to police”, FMT, 18.6.2017).
The position is further compounded by the fact that Dzulkifli may have also been involved in the 1MDB investigations by the AG’s Chambers as it is no secret that Dzulkifli was present together with the AG during the press conference on 26.1.2016 where the AG cleared the Prime Minister of any wrongdoing in relation to the USD$681 million transferred into the account of the PM saying that same was a personal donation to the PM by the Saudi Royal family (see: “Najib cleared by AG on RM2.6b and RM42m from SRC Int’l”, FMT, 26.1.2016).
That was in January, 2016 when Dzulkifli was still attached to the AG’s Chambers as he was appointed MACC chief only in July, 2016.
It is further pertinent to note that before the AG cleared the PM, the MACC had submitted its investigation papers to the AG and requested him to facilitate in the issuance of Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) to a foreign state for the purpose of completing its investigations which the AG refused on the ground that it was no longer necessary to investigate the matter further in light of his findings that the said funds were a donation.
In other words, it is clear that the MACC had not completed its investigations at that stage and required the further assistance of the AG to do so.
The point from all of this which is of critical importance is that Dzulkifli may have been a part of the AG’s team which cleared the PM then despite the fact that the MACC had not completed its investigations on the matter yet. How can he now, as head of the MACC, participate in the MACC’s investigations into 1MDB and/or matters related to it when he may have been a part of the AG’s Chambers which deliberated on the matter in detail then?
With respect, Dzulkifli may not be seen to be impartial in any decision by the MACC pertaining to the investigations into 1MDB and/or matters related to it having been a part of the AG’s team on the matter in the past.
In light of the above, it is obvious that Dzulkifli may be in a position of conflict when it comes to the investigation of 1MDB and/or matters related to it by the MACC.
In the circumstances, I call upon Dzulkifli to recuse himself from partaking in any matter related to the investigation of 1MDB or any matter related thereto by the MACC including the latest complaint for forfeiture in rem by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) which was filed last week.
Dzulkifli must make his role in the investigations of 1MDB (when he was attached with the AG’s Chambers) known to avoid any negative perception that he may be biased in relation to the same having possibly worked with the AG in the past on the matter, failing which, he must no longer participate in such investigations and leave the matter to his deputy.