A SEA of public revelations in the 1Malaysia Development Bhd case is going to add to the prosecution’s challenges in court when trial commences.

The amount of information being revealed and debated in the media will only throw a spanner in the prosecution’s case.

Proving a case with admissible evidence is procedurally more tedious and difficult in court than airing speculative public opinion as it is being played out in the media now.

The prosecution’s strategic plan to call witnesses to keep with the chronology of events so as to ensure the chain of evidence is not broken could be affected in one way or another.

Exhibits have to be intact and handled with care. The documentary evidence in this case will be monumental and a lot of careful planning is required to ensure nothing is missed out to avoid any misstep in procedural law.

It will be the primary task of the prosecution to make out a prima facie case and get defence called. Any doubt at this stage will mean the accused goes free on technicalities. 

The enforcement agency suggesting the charges has submitted investigation papers to the attorney-general for the final decision on the charges.

The actual charge or charges is his sole prerogative. The investigation papers can be sent back to the investigators with further instructions to tie up loose ends if the A-G feels he needs more evidence.

He must be given space and time to ensure the case is airtight before going to trial.  Revelations about witnesses and the evidence linked to them by the media cannot be verified but can become a liability to the veracity of evidence adduced during proceedings.

Revelations of key witnesses and the roles they are expected to play by the media both social and mainstream do not augur well for their safety, security and reliability.

Given time, suspects in a case could tamper with these witnesses with threats, inducements and promises.

Exhibits may be damaged and witnesses may not turn up or become hostile. The possibility of this happening increases with the longer time the suspect is given the opportunity to absorb and piece together the case being built against him.

The degree of this possibility heightens further if the suspect is a person of influence and affluence.  All he needs is to do is create a break in any part of the chain of evidence and provide a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.

He will use all the unscrupulous tools at his disposal to do so as he becomes more desperate. Never underestimate a cornered rat!

So the more his case is publicly debated, the more ideas he and those who support him get. To secure a “good evidence driven conviction” that survives all the platforms for appeal requires a meticulously prepared and thorough approach.

The media should cease reporting details of speculative evidence.

* 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.