KOTA KINABALU: The Attorney General (AG) has been urged to explain why he chose not to prosecute one of the four key suspects involved in the Sabah Watergate scandal.
Sabah Law Society (SLS) president Roger Chin said the case, which was part of the state’s biggest graft probe, attracted high public interest and it was important for the AG including the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to explain the reasons as it "strikes high in the faith of the administration and governance."
The decision by the MACC-led prosecution to not proceed saw former Sabah Water Department deputy director Teo Chee Kong, who was facing a total of 146 money laundering charges involving RM32.93mil, given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) by the special corruption court here on Friday (Feb 18).
Teo, 57, was ordered to pay a RM30mil fine via a compound notice, which is a form of punitive punishment following the DNAA.
"Competent authorities or relevant enforcement agencies must explain to the public how a person charged for misappropriation involving RM32mil can obtain a discharge by paying a RM30mil compound and face no further consequences especially when the very availability of RM30mil to pay the compound itself lies at the very heart of the charges faced.
"If a good reason exists, transparency demands that this should be at the very least indicated to the public.
"Long gone are the days of a 'father knows best' and 'do as I say' without the need to give an explanation," he said in a statement on Sunday (Feb 20).
Chin said that SLS agreed with the Malaysian Bar's call to AG's Chambers to provide reasons to the public when it decides to discontinue prosecution at any stage in cases of public interest, regardless of the personality.
The Malaysian Bar, in making the call during the Opening of the Legal Year 2022, said that there was no doubt under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution empowers the AG with "wide discretion" to conduct, institute or discontinue any proceedings for a criminal offence, this discretion is not absolute and unfettered.
Chin said it was a central tenet of the rule of law that there must be transparency in any decision making which was crucial to build public trust and confidence.
Chin said that Section 92 of Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (AMLA) allowed for a relevant enforcement agency, with the consent of the Public Prosecutor, to make the decision whether to compound or not to charge.
"The AGC and MACC are obliged to explain to the public the reasons for the decision not to proceed with the charges.
"A lack of information only fuels speculation amongst the public and continues to encourage the international perception of rampant corruption in Malaysia," he said, adding that moves came when Malaysia slipped to the 62nd place among 180 countries in corruption perception rankings.
Chin also pointed out that Teo, since being charged in Dec 2017, had failed in various legal bids to quash all 146 corruption charges made against him.
Teo's applications were dismissed by the High Court along with several other applications over two forfeiture orders on land and banks accounts as well as a bid for the recusal of the Sessions Court judge among others in protracted legal challenges to the case that went to the Court of Appeal.
Following the legal challenges, Sessions Court began trial hearings on Aug 6, 2019 with the prosecution having so far called five of some 200 witnesses.
Teo was among four people charged for money laundering. The others were the then Sabah Water Department director Awang Mohd Tahir Mohd Talib, 59, his wife Fauziah Piut, 56, and state Finance Ministry adviser and retired deputy director of the department Lim Lam Beng, 67.
They were slapped with separate charges at a Sessions Court for money laundering involving RM61.5mil on Dec 29, 2016.
Their cases are ongoing.