IT comes as no surprise that the MACC yesterday clarified it was Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail, who decided not to charge Musa Aman in 2012.

It was actually bemusing when the MACC was asked to explain the decision not to charge Musa then. It seems to imply that they had a major hand in the decision to prosecute.

They have come out with a swift clarification, and the reason given by the A-G, according to them, leaves much to be desired from the strictest interpretation of the rule of law.

How and who created the policy of not holding individuals criminally accountable for political donations that were evidentially linked to corruption, will need some serious clarification herein.

Again, this whole situation further emphasises the need to revamp the investigative and prosecution arms of the criminal justice system. No one could question the A-G on his prerogative in not charging Musa in 2012.

And this sole prerogative continues till today.

Investigative arms must no longer be totally subservient to the A-G’s Chambers. There must be a check and balance to the way evidence is presented at all stages of the system, and there must be a separate recourse when the suggestion to charge is rejected.

Of late, there have been a deluge of charges in many criminal cases, that have been in limbo for many years.

Of course, the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal leads the pack, and we can expect many more old cases that are pending or categorised as “ongoing investigations that were never closed” to now be completed and ready for prosecution.

It is realpolitik and those within the political landscape are not really shocked. However, it can be confusing for the simple man on the street as to how evidence can be ambiguously interpreted under different custodians of our criminal justice system.

It can be both disheartening and demoralising!

Although there are provisions to minimise the delay and the outcome of investigations, it can be manipulated easily by consensual participation of the lower limbs in the criminal justice system.

The A-G undoubtedly must share the accountability of such delays especially when there are mala fide intentions at any stage of either investigations or prosecution.

The burden upon the investigators and prosecutors get heavier in direct proportion to the longer the delay. It can even be forgotten and set aside forever if the rule of law coupled with the lack of moral conscience fails.

A good system need not depend on political will to ensure that the rule of law reigns supreme.

New Malaysia must realise that the people deserve better and that investigators must no longer be allowed to become political tools at the whims and fancies of their political masters.

It is easy to blame and make the investigative arm the scapegoat of any case as they are regimentedly trained to be subservient by command and control, enhanced further by the unholy fusion of powers between investigations and prosecution of which the A-G is all powerful.

There is a great urgency to widen the separation powers between the two lower limbs of the criminal justice system. The judiciary must become directly accessible to the investigation arm. Presently the A-G acts for all matters of investigation and prosecution in judicial proceedings.

This enables chambers to be in total evidential control of all enforcement agencies in our criminal justice system. This has to be improved in the spirit of transparency and integrity.

It is obvious there are questions to be answered as to how and why Musa Aman was not charged in 2012, and this could only be the tip of the iceberg.

It is imperative that these findings be thoroughly clarified through transparent channels of inquiry available within the system. – November 10, 2018.

* G. Selva reads The Malaysian Insight.

* 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.