Is AG Apandi guilty of conflict of interest when he decided that Najib will not be charged for the RM2.6 billion “donation” and SRC scandals?

Is the Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali guilty of conflict of interest when he decided that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak had committed no criminal offence in the RM2.6 billion “donation” and SRC scandals?

Apandi should have withdrawn from the decision-making process on what actions should be taken on the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) investigation papers on Najib’s RM2.6 billion “donation” and SRC scandals, and left the decisions to be taken by the Solicitor-General.

It is open history that Apandi was appointed by Najib in the most extraordinary of circumstances, when the former Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail was suddenly and shockingly sacked on July 28 purportedly on “health” reasons, which even took Gani by total surprise.

Up to now, the real reason for Gani’s sacking as Attorney-General had not been given to the Malaysian public, as he appeared very healthy and is even now starting on a new career as a legal consultant after having retired from the public service three months after he was sacked as Attorney-General – three months before his compulsory retirement.

It has been speculated in the public domain that the reason for Gani’s sacking was because the Attorney-General’s Chambers under Gani was preparing to charge the Prime Minister for corruption in connection with Najib’s world-class twin mega scandals.

Up to now, there has been no satisfactory answer on this issue, whether involving Najib as Prime Minister, Apandi as the current Attorney-General or Gani as the sacked Attorney-General.

These extraordinary circumstances of Apandi’s appointment as Attorney-General by Najib in place of Gani are additional reasons why Apandi should have avoided any conflict of interest situation and withdrawn from any decision-making on MACC’s investigation papers relating to Najib in its investigations into the RM2.6 billion donation and SRC scandals.

Apandi’s announcement that there will no charges against Najib also runs contrary to what MACC officials had said on public record.

Yesterday, after MACC had resubmitted its investigation papers to the AG’s Chambers at the request of Apandi himself on Jan 22, the MACC special operations chief Bahri Mohd Zain said the MACC was confident that the AG’s Chambers was satisfied with its investigation into two cases linked to the Prime Minister as the AG’s Chambers had not called the MACC in on the matter – the RM2.6 billion found in Prime Minister Najib’s bank accounts and claims that RM42 million flowed from state-owned SRC International into Najib’s accounts.

Bahri said that conventionally, the attorney-general will call in MACC top management or the investigation officer to discuss facts of the case and proposed charges in high-profile cases, before deciding on whether to prosecute the matter.

He said: “In the SRC International and RM2.6 billion cases, the MACC has not been called in for a discussion and I believe this is because the attorney-general is satisfied with the proposals made in the investigation papers.”

Bahri and the other MACC officials must be very surprised and disappointed that their expectations had been dashed to the ground and they must be as shocked as Malaysians that the Attorney-General had decided that no charges would be brought against Najib based on the MACC investigation papers.

I call on Apandi to make public the MACC’s proposals in its investigation papers on the RM2.6 billion “donation” and SRC scandals.

Although Article 145(3) of the Constitution vests absolute discretion on the Attorney-General “to institute, conduct or discontinue” any proceedings for an offence, which cannot be challenged in a court of law, the Attorney-General should realise that in high-profile cases affecting the Prime Minister as in the two cases involved, he owes a heavy responsibility to the Malaysian public to account for his extraordinary decision not to charge the Prime Minister at all

Apandi’s revelation that Najib had returned RM2.03 billion to the Saudi royal family, two months after the May general election, has raised even more questions – why did he accept the astronomical donations for the 13th General Election campaign in the first place and why did he return RM2.03 billion in August 2013; what happened to the balance of RM570 million from the original sum of RM2.6 billion?

Why didn’t Najib admit that he had returned the RM2.03 billion of the Saudi royal family, when he was prepared to let it be known that the donor for the RM2.6 billion had come from a Saudi royal family?

The question of who had benefitted from the astronomical donations still await answer.

Furthermore, what about the reports that more deposits were put into Najib’s personal bank accounts after the 13th General Election, to the extent that the total amounts deposited into Najib’s personal bank accounts before and after the 13th General Election could have reached RM4 billion?

To remove all these questions and suspicions, a high-level three-man committee comprising two former judges and the former Attorney-General Tan Sri Abu Talib Othmn should be formed to review Apandi’s decision to determine whether there had been a conflict of interest as well as whether the Attorney-General’s decision not to prosecute the Prime Minister was correct based on the MACC’s investigation papers.

(Speech at the DAP Batu Pahat “Solidarity with Lim Kit Siang & Mana RM2.6 billion?” kopitiam ceramah in Tongkang Pecah on Tuesday, 26th January 2016 at 12 noon)

  1. #1 by LaM on Tuesday, 26 January 2016 - 5:09 pm

    Mr Lim should initiate a move to challenge the perverse and unlawful decision of the AG/PP not to issue a consent to prosecute.

    The Public Prosecutor and his Deputies are public officers. And as public officers, their decisions if it goes against public interest are reviewable by a court of law. In the UK case of Rv DPPex PC 1995 Cr App R136, Keneddy LJ said that it had been ‘common ground’ that a decision by the DPP not to prosecute was reviewable. Three circumstances in which applicant for a judicial review of a decision not to prosecute would be effective are when 1) the decision is a result of some unlawful policy, or 2) the decision was perverse and/or 3) PP/DPP had deviated from the normal standard and practice of issuing consent.

    Apandi has no bloody right to order the Macc or any investigative bodies to close their investigation papers. His duty when presented with the papers is to issue or not to issue the consent to prosecute & to prosecute. He has no bloody right over the investigation papers or order any investigation to be closed.

    Macc shld declassify the investigation papers and made public the outcome of their investigation.

  2. #2 by Bigjoe on Tuesday, 26 January 2016 - 6:35 pm

    Fact is the attention given to this news is because of its audacity to continue with the unbelievable story line. The real significance is that there is little new or different than what was expected.

    So now we have ridiculous audacity, there cannot be no next step to deal with reality in votes. Fraud, cheating, and plugging racism and religo-hate is unavoidable for Najib. They can say these ridiculousness, they can do horrific things.

    It’s war against the Rakyat and the thing called Malaysia

  3. #3 by boh-liao on Tuesday, 26 January 2016 - 6:49 pm

    WHAT guilt?
    Look at d happy, smiling faces of d AG n his team

    So happy when making d announcement, NO case, case CLOSED
    Reward time

  4. #4 by boh-liao on Tuesday, 26 January 2016 - 6:51 pm

    This IS Malaysia
    There r a few UNtouchables – everything n anything CAN 1

  5. #5 by boh-liao on Tuesday, 26 January 2016 - 6:54 pm

    MSiA’s LLS is pEEing in his pants
    Case gone liao, better quickly beg 4 forgiveness

  6. #6 by worldpress on Tuesday, 26 January 2016 - 7:27 pm

    Advice him go back to Jungle to live, don’t come out here disgrace Malaysian intelligent.

    What kind of world is that if anyone steal goods in Supermarket get caught then return back goods get no charge!

    Send him back to JUNGLE don’t come out here disgrace US!

  7. #7 by yhsiew on Wednesday, 27 January 2016 - 7:41 am

    Saudi gift to Malaysia PM Najib Razak ‘for election campaign’

  8. #8 by LaM on Wednesday, 27 January 2016 - 8:01 am

    In clearing Najib, Apandi himself has committed a slew of penal code offences u/d s.212 of harboring Najib, a corrupt offender and u/d s.217 & 218 of disobeying a direction of the law with intent to save Najib from punishment. Pandi acted more like Najib’s defence lawyer than the nation’s top Public Prosecutor ie PP. A public Prosecutor goes after the criminals whilst a defence lawyer protects the criminal from punishment.

    Pandi’s action in directing the Macc to close the cases and stop all investigation against Najib amounted to criminal acts under the Penal Code. As AG, u/d Art 145(3) Fed Const he has no power and authority to order an investigation to be stopped or closed since his power is limited to instituting proceedings in court, conducting prosecutions or discontinuing them. As a Public Prosecutor, under the Criminal procedure Code, his duty is limited to issuing ‘consent to prosecute’ on request from investigating agencies, conducting prosecutions in court and stopping further prosecution.

    In practice, no Public Prosecutor or DPP would order an investigation to be stopped or closed. If such an illegal & unlawful order is given, it is obviously done with criminal intent & purpose of preventing the investigating agency from using all its endeavor and resources to investigate further to find further evidences, a fundamental principle and practice in criminal law and procedure.

    The Macc had gone public that they have not completed their investigation on the RM2.6billion case. Pandi’s order to close & stop investigation amounted to criminal acts punishable u/d sections 212 & 217 Penal Code.

    On the RM42million bribe, his only power is refusing to ‘issue a consent to prosecute’ since he is of the opinion that there is insufficient evidence whether rightly or wrongly for reasons known to him. He has no power to order the investigation to be closed or stopped. An honest Public prosecutor would have directed the Macc to continue further investigation to get further evidences. A dishonest PP with criminal intent would order the investigation to be stopped or closed to protect or screen an offender.

  9. #9 by Godfather on Wednesday, 27 January 2016 - 5:59 pm

    Let’s face it. If they were to promulgate a new legislation giving Bijan full immunity since he was already cleared by the AG himself, would you have the means to reject the legislation in the House ? The basic premise here is that Bijan already has all that he needs to rule forever – the police, the AG’s Chambers, the judiciary all under his control, and the NSC to imprison anyone who dares to question his methods.

  10. #10 by good coolie on Thursday, 28 January 2016 - 5:17 pm

    Now, I know who this “Bijan” is. Took me some time, due to old age. Bijan is the one, and only one, person to return a lawful donation. But did he report the donation to the appropriate authorities when he received it? How come he says he returned it only when the “shit hits the fan”? Care to prove that he returned it?
    The paper trail should show whether he returned the very same money or money obtained from sale of other assets (like land or other public assets). Bijan is making Malaysians look stupid.

You must be logged in to post a comment.