.png)
KOTA KINABALU – A Sabah legal group has asked the authorities and enforcement agencies to explain how former Sabah Water Department deputy director Teo Chee Kong was granted a discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) by the special corruption court.
Teo was slapped with a compound of RM30 million.
Sabah Law Society (SLS) president Roger Chin asked how a person charged for misappropriation involving RM32 million can obtain a discharge by paying a RM30 million compound and face no further consequences, when the very availability of RM30 million to pay the compound lies at the very heart of the charges faced.
“If a good reason exists, transparency demands that this should be at the very least indicated to the public,” Chin said in a statement today.
Chin was referring to the special corruption court’s decision last Friday which gave a discharge not amounting to acquittal to Teo, who was facing a total of 146 charges of money laundering involving RM32.93 million.
“SLS is aware of the provisions under Section 92 of the Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act 2001 (Amla) which stipulates:
92. (1) The competent authority or relevant enforcement agency, as the case may be, may, with the consent of the public prosecutor, compound any offence under this act or under regulations made under this act, by accepting from the person reasonably suspected of having committed the offence such amount not exceeding fifty per centum of the amount of the maximum fine for that offence, including the daily fine, if any, in the case of a continuing offence, to which that person would have been liable if he had been convicted of the offence, within such time as may be specified in its written offer.
“It was further reported that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) legal and prosecution division senior director said that the compound is a form of punitive action and enables asset recovery of the lost funds.
“However, this justification must be seen in the following light as summarised from available press reports:
- More than 200 witnesses were reported to give their statements to MACC.
- The former Sabah Water Department deputy director was charged on 13 December 2017. The trial was supposed to resume on 2–3 April 2018 but was postponed to 7–11 May 2018.
- In March 2018, the former Sabah Water Department deputy director’s application to quash all 146 corruption charges made against him was dismissed by the high court.
- On 21 May 2018, the sessions court postponed the trial following the former Sabah Water Department deputy director’s application for a stay having been granted by the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya on 18 May 2018 until the disposal of three appeals.
- On 19 March 2019, the sessions court set trial dates to commence 6 August 2019 for the continuation of the trial. As of that date, the prosecution had so far called five witnesses in the trial.
“The Malaysian Bar had on the occasion of the opening of the legal year 2022 said that it would bode well for the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to provide reasons to the public when it decides to discontinue prosecution at any stage in cases of public interest, regardless of the personality.
“Notwithstanding that the federal constitution under article 145(3) empowers the Attorney-General with “wide discretion” to conduct, institute or discontinue any proceedings for a criminal offence, this discretion is not absolute and unfettered.
“SLS wholeheartedly endorses this clarion call and further says that this principle should likewise apply to all competent authorities or relevant enforcement agencies prosecuting public interest cases.
“It is a central tenet of the rule of law that there must be transparency in any decision-making which is crucial to building public trust and confidence,” Chin said.
He stressed that in cases attracting high public interest where the charge is one that strikes at the heart of faith in the administration and its governance, the AGC and/or competent authorities or relevant enforcement agencies, including the MACC, must provide reasons to the public where it decides to discontinue prosecution at any stage.
“Section 92 of AMLA clearly provides that the competent authority or relevant enforcement agency, as the case may be, may, with the consent of the public prosecutor are to make the decision whether to compound or not a charge – either the AGC and/or MACC is obliged to explain to the public the reasons for the decision to not proceed with the charges.
“A lack of information only fuels speculation amongst the public and continues to encourage international perception of rampant corruption in Malaysia,” he added. – The Vibes, February 20, 2022
