ANTI-corruption group C4 has questioned the independence of government institutions following the court’s discharge with a full acquittal of Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng in his corruption case.

The Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism expressed its “extreme surprise” over the Penang High Court’s decision today and urged the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to clarify its reasons why it had wanted Lim charged in the first place.

C4 executive director Cynthia Gabriel said the acquittal underscored the need for clarification over the initial charge, and for disciplinary sanction.

“The ease of which he was acquitted, even when the prosecution asked for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal, raises highly suspicious flags,” she said in a statement.

“(Former attorney-general) Mohamed Apandi Ali, was so confident in leading the prosecution of Lim Guan Eng himself.”

“But if the then attorney-general was so certain in the case, how can it be so easily dropped by the high court today?”

“Either the previous attorney-general was coerced to press charges in court, or the system is always stacked in favour of the existing government.”

In 2016, Apandi had appeared in the Penang sessions court to press the initial set of charges against Lim over the alleged conversion of land status and the purchase of a bungalow below market value.

Lim then was Penang chief minister and Barisan Nasional was in federal power.

C4 had previously said that Lim, who became a minister after Pakatan Harapan won the May 9 general election, needed to be cleared of corruption charges before assuming his ministerial post in the name of good governance.

Cynthia raised concerns that institutions are subject to political interference and partisan motivations when it comes to corruption.

“We are concerned that politicians who have actually betrayed the public trust may be allowed back into the system, while others may have to suffer from trumped-up charges in the interest of defending political supremacy rather than the public interest,” she said.

Today’s development would need “transparent explanations” from the MACC and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), she added.

MACC had earlier expressed shock at the discharge and full acquittal, distancing itself from the AGC.

“If they’re expressing shock, then they are pushing the responsibility solely to the AGC. If they believed there was a case, MACC must explain to the public of the initial reasons for recommending charges to be pressed in the first place. We may also need to consider disciplinary sanctions over this imbroglio.”

She said the public needs reassurance that the originating evidence and motivations in MACC’s investigation papers are valid.

“Otherwise, if the charges are revealed to be politically motivated, then there is a pressing need for greater reform in insulating Malaysian institutions from political interference.”

One method, she said, is by separating the public prosecutor’s office from the attorney-general’s purview. – September 3, 2018.