THE Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA) and its disciplinary committee (DC) have successfully appealed to reinstate a complaint filed by former Damansara MP Tony Pua against Deloitte PLT partner Ng Yee Hong concerning the audit of 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) financial statements.

This decision follows the Court of Appeal’s three-member panel of judges, consisting of Justices Azizah Nawawi, See Mee Chun, and Mohamed Zaini Mazlan, allowing the appeal by MIA and its DC to overturn a High Court decision that permitted Ng’s judicial review to dismiss Pua’s complaint.

In the comprehensive grounds of the court, Justice Azizah stated that the High Court judge had committed an appealable error, justifying the intervention of the appellate court.

She pointed out that the charges brought against Ng based on Pua’s complaint differ from the charges in an earlier complaint lodged by Andrew Anand Solomon Devasahayam.

Justice Azizah explained that the charges for Pua’s complaint and Devasahayam’s complaint were filed against Ng simultaneously and were intended to be heard together if Ng had not objected to the consolidation.

She noted that Ng had requested the deferral of the disciplinary proceedings for Pua’s complaint after the hearing on Devasahayam’s complaint. Therefore, there was no issue with the DC raising an identical complaint.

She ordered Ng to pay costs of RM20,000 each to the DC and MIA. The court’s decision was delivered online.

Two distinct complaints were filed by Devasahayam and Pua on March 31, 2015, and May 26, 2015, respectively, addressing the professional conduct of Ng as an auditor of 1MDB for the financial years ending in 2013 and 2014.

The DC reached a verdict on Devasahayam’s complaint in 2020, finding Ng guilty. As a consequence, Ng received a two-year suspension and a RM5,000 fine.

On appeal, the findings of the DC were affirmed by the Disciplinary Appeal Board (DAB) of MIA. Aggrieved by DAB’s decision, Ng filed a judicial review application which was subsequently dismissed by the High Court on Dec 9, 2021.

On Pua’s complaint, Ng took the position that the complaints by Devasahayam and Pua were the same and on September 10, 2019, he wrote to the DC to dismiss Pua’s complaint.

However, the DC, through a letter dated September 23, the same year, rejected Ng’s application to discontinue the disciplinary proceedings concerning Pua’s complaint, prompting him (Ng) to file a judicial review to quash the DC’s decision.

On May 11, 2022, the High Court allowed Ng’s application to quash the DC’s decision. The DC and MIA then appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal. – Bernama, January 12, 2024.