I REFER to news reports on the statements made by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) Anti-Corruption Advisory Board chairman Abu Zahar Ujang, and MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki at their press conference on 5 January.

Much was expected of this press conference as Abu Zahar had promised to explain why he took no action when serious allegations about Azam’s business interests were brought to his attention. Much was also expected of Azam, since he had not spoken publicly about these allegations since they first arose a few months ago.

However, the statements by Abu Zahar and Azam have raised more questions than answers. Their statements have exposed even more problems within the MACC, while raising extremely distressing new concerns about Azam’s business interests. 

These new issues relate to three core questions: first, is administration within the MACC so poor?  Second, can the advisory board act impartially, as well as appropriately, when dealing with serious allegations of impropriety by senior MACC officers? Third, has Azam’s response raised new legal and regulatory questions about his business interests? I will deal with these issues separately.

Issue 1: Poor MACC administration?

Abu Zahar insists his office’s secretariat did not receive even one of the three emails I sent him.  How is this possible?  If so, this suggests gross negligence on the part of the MACC secretariat or that the MACC’s impressive technology system is extremely faulty.  I find these claims incredulous. 

Are we expected to believe this occurred when I sent emails to the secretariat on an extremely pertinent issue?

B) Even if we are to accept this claim that the MACC’s secretariat did not receive these emails, I informed Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel chairman Borhan Dolah of the need to have a meeting on this matter. Borhan responded that he would look into this matter and “advised MACC accordingly”.  I also copied all my emails to another advisory board member.  Two other board members were informed of my concern that Abu Zahar had not responded to my emails.

Is Abu Zahar insisting that even though numerous people were aware of my emails to him, no one raised this matter with him?

C) Abu Zahar claims I did not agree to meet him when his office’s secretariat approached me, through Whatsapp, on Wednesday, 28 December, requesting a meeting. I had, in fact, immediately responded stating that I would like to meet Abu Zahar. But since I was going abroad soon, I asked that we meet that very night, through a Zoom meeting. Abu Zahar’s office did not respond to my request that we meet that night. I have copied these Whatsapp messages to editors of newspapers to verify my intent to meet Abu Zahar.

Issue 2: An independent Advisory Board?

A) Abu Zahar stated that the Advisory Board met on November 24. At this meeting, Abu Zahar said that Azam gave its members an explanation of the allegations made against him. Can the minutes of this advisory board meeting on November 24 be publicly disclosed since this is a matter of public interest?

B) Why is it that Abu Zahar and the board members did not invite the whistle-blower, who had raised these allegations, to discuss this matter? Or, why did the Advisory Board not invite me to present and discuss these matters to them, as I had offered to do so?

C) Why did Abu Zahar not call for a press conference immediately after the advisory board meeting on November 24 to inform the public about what had transpired, including explaining why Azam had been exonerated of the serious allegations made against him?

D) Azam stated in his press conference that he is answerable only to the MACC advisory board.  He is also required to respond publicly to allegations made against him, as these matters were raised in Parliament, deeply tarnishing the image of the MACC.  

Issue 3:  Violation of regulations and laws?

Azam’s first public response to these allegations against him raise extremely alarming questions:

A) Azam claims that the company shares he owned belonged to his brother. Is Azam not aware of the need to declare ‘beneficial ownership’ when holding corporate equity in trust?

B) Azam must be aware that it is not sufficient to inform his superior, the then MACC chief commissioner whom he did not name, of his ownership of this corporate equity. Did Azam also declare his ownership of this corporate equity as required by government regulation? Why did the then MACC chief commissioner approve Azam’s form of corporate ownership when he may have violated beneficial ownership-related legislation? 

C) Were the company warrants that Azam owned also held in trust for his brother?  If so, how did Azam obtain the funds to acquire these warrants?

D) Why did Azam not address any of the other serious allegations raised in the reports by the whistle-blower that I had sent to Abu Zahar?

These questions draw attention to issues pertaining to conflict of interest, dereliction of duty, and possible violation of legislation and regulations by not just Azam, but other MACC officials, indicating a deeply disturbing trend within this institution. 

This public response by Azam indicates why it is now imperative to institute an independent investigation into these allegations. Abu Zahar’s failure to address this issue indicates an urgent and imperative need for institutional reforms within the MACC.

It is now vital that Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob publicly speaks on this issue. The MACC falls under his jurisdiction. The Prime Minister is also duty-bound to address this matter as the press conference by the MACC’s leading officials have further tarnished the integrity and image of this institution.

*Edmund Terence Gomez is a former member of the MACC’s oversight panel.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.