Several burning questions have been raised following Riza Aziz’s controversial settlement which has since erupted into a drama revolving around loyalty, integrity and trust.
While numerous statements have been issued, with the latest from the Prime Minister’s Office, the episode is far from over.
From how the deal came about to the unprecedented “he says, they say” by former Attorney-General Tan Sri Tommy Thomas, the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and Tommy’s successor Tan Sri Idrus Harun have piqued the interest of those within the fraternity and the general public alike.
Among the questions on the top of everybody’s minds:
- What exactly is Riza’s settlement and was it consistent in law and in substance?
- Were the MACC and Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) misled or misinformed in reaching the settlement?
- Should Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram – the former Federal Court judge turned private practitioner who was appointed by Thomas to be part of the prosecution – clear the air?
Sri Ram, having worked closely with Thomas and Idrus, is not expected to say anything further as he would not want to undermine his new boss Idrus who already issued a statement regarding the episode over the weekend.
This was after an unimpressed Thomas went on record (twice) to clear his name following MACC’s May 14 statement and Idrus’ statement on Sunday.
The anti-graft body’s statement ended by saying: “The agreement between the prosecution and the accused through representation in court was a decision considered and agreed by the former Attorney-General, Tan Sri Tommy Thomas.”
Idrus, meanwhile, said he was “advised” that Thomas was prepared to consider a representation from Riza last year to drop money laundering charges provided certain conditions were met. Idrus’ statement, available on the AGC website, did not name the person who had “advised” him.
A public spat of such nature, while never seen before, should be discouraged as it undermines the credibility of the institution. The integrity of the institution must be safeguarded.
And then there is the perception of distrust.
A three-paragraph statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) today stressed that Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin was not involved in the deal and that the decision made on the discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) was a result of an agreement struck between the prosecution and the accused through representation submitted to the AGC.
The statement ends by saying “The Prime Minister does not interfere in the AGC, judiciary and decisions on any criminal case in the country, including high-profile cases.”
Senior lawyer Datuk Seri Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos said the statement by the PMO may seem to give rise to the perception of distrust between Putrajaya and the people.
“It is of course the right of the Prime Minister’s Office to issue any statement it wants. However, the PMO must be cognisant of the fact that whatever statements it issues will create multiple perceptions. PMO has to first of all weigh if those perceptions are necessary to be created or not,” said Jahaberdeen, who is also a Twentytwo13 columnist.
“In this case, the perception that will arise is why Putrajaya finds it a need to issue the letter when very clearly it is the AGC’s (role) and not the executive.
“The very fact that Putrajaya finds a need to issue the letter may give rise to some sense of distrust between some segments of the population and Putrajaya and vice-versa.
“Putrajaya must be very careful in issuing statements … as an institution the PMO must be careful in issuing statements.”
