AN affidavit by former attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail is one of the factors why charges against former Sabah chief minister Musa Aman were dropped, said A-G Idrus Harun.

Idrus said in the affidavit, Gani defended a 2012 decision he made to drop graft investigations into Musa. 

But it was for the “strangest reason” that the decision in 2012 was made.

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) had a strong case against Musa in 2012 but they were told to drop it, then special prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram had told the Sessions Court on November 4, 2018. 

The former Federal Court judge was opening the case against Musa who was charged with 35 counts of corruption for alleged offences that took place between 2004 and 2008.

According to Sri Ram, MACC had been investigating the former Sabah chief minister for some time.

“The case, however, had been ordered to be closed for the strangest reason,” he told Sessions Court judge Rozina Ayob.

Sri Ram later told Malaysiakini he was surprised Gani did not order for Musa to be prosecuted. He then credited Gani’s successor, Tommy Thomas for the decision to prosecute Musa.

The team at MACC, comprising chief commissioner Mohd Sukri Abdull, his deputy Azam Baki, deputy public prosecutor Ahmad Akram Gharib and Kamal Bahrin Omar was also credited.

Following the decision to prosecute, the MACC released a statement that it had indeed conducted its investigations into Musa, after which the investigation paper was submitted to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) on July 2012 for further action. 

However, the then A-G (Gani) decided not to pursue with any charges as the investigation was related to political donation. At that particular time, it was the policy of the AGC to not prosecute cases related to political donation.

Upon receiving new information with regards to the case, the MACC had reviewed the investigation paper against Musa in 2018, and had resubmitted the investigation paper to the AGC to be reviewed. The then attorney-general (Thomas) had decided to charge Musa with 35 corruption charges under Section 11(a) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997.

Fast forward, it is now “no longer tenable” to continue prosecuting Musa.

It could well be. 

As Idrus disclosed, documentary evidence from companies and banks could not be obtained through mutual legal assistance in criminal matters from Hong Kong. It was also highly unlikely that companies and banks in Hong Kong would still have the records as companies and banks there are required to keep records for only seven years.

Apart from that, witnesses for the prosecution have either passed away, suffered serious medical ailments or are not in Malaysia.

But it must be the “strangest reason” that the decision in 2012 should be one of the reasons to drop charges against Musa.

The decision has already been discredited by the prosecution team in November 2018.

Interestingly, unlike in the Riza Aziz case, it was not Sri Ram who stood before the High Court judge and, pursuant to Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code, informed the judge that he would not further prosecute the accused.

Perhaps Sri Ram could enlighten the public.

* Hafiz Hassan 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.