LEGAL EXPERTS: LET GUAN ENG’S CORRUPTION CASE PROCEED

It is the best avenue for finance minister to clear his name, say experts

THERE is no reason why the ongoing case of the RM2.8 million bungalow purchase by Lim Guan Eng should be dropped when this is the best avenue for the finance minister to clear his name.

Observers and legal experts said failure to allow Lim to fight his case in an open court would not only leave his credibility open to question, it could also affect the newly-elected government’s stand in upholding transparency and the rule of law.

Lim, who is facing charges of allegedly using his position as former Penang chief minister to acquire a plot of land and a bungalow well under market value, has maintained his innocence.

Groups within the legal and enforcement fraternities are concerned over the possibility that Lim’s case could be dropped.

His counsel had, on May 21, said they would propose to the new attorney-general (A-G) for the case to be dismissed.

Last month, the Sessions Court here freed former Bank Rakyat managing director Datuk Mustafha Abd Razak and the bank’s former chairman, Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Zainal, of charges of committing criminal breach of trust and abetment, respectively, involving nearly RM15 million, after the A-G Chambers (A-GC) withdrew the case, which revolved around the biography of a prominent political figure.

It is understood that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), which had built the case and recommended that the two be charged, was not informed or briefed about the decision. It never had the chance to present the A-GC’s decision to the independent Operations Evaluation Panel (PPO) for scrutiny, as per procedure.

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia political science senior lecturer Mohamad Agus Yusoff said a high-profile case like Lim’s should proceed to enable him to clear his name and avoid negative implications on the government and the A-GC for “alleged interference” and accusations of double standards.

“The Pakatan Harapan (PH) government has touted itself as a government that observes the rule of law. This is a promise they made to the people. The trial should proceed, especially since it is already in motion, and seeing how this is a high-profile case,” he told the New Sunday Times.

Former MACC advisory board chairman Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim shared Agus’ take on the issue, saying that withdrawing the case would lend credence to suggestions that A-G Tommy Thomas’ appointment was a political deal between DAP and Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

“I hope the rumour is not true (withdrawal of the cases), as it would lend credence to the public’s perception that the A-G’s appointment was part of a political deal, where in return for DAP’s support of Dr Mahathir as prime minister, Thomas would use his power to have cases against Lim withdrawn.

“This, especially since the AGC’s had made a determination (earlier) that there was sufficient evidence obtained by MACC to proceed. Unless new, irrefutable evidence has emerged, it is in the interest of justice and good governance to let the court decide.”

However, Agus said the A-G had the power and the discretion to proceed or withdraw ongoing cases without having to give a reason, or provide any basis for his decision, as stipulated under Article 145 (3) of the Federal Constitution.

Article 145 (3) states that “the A-G shall have power exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a syariah court, a native court or a court-martial”.

Malaysian Bar council president George Varughese said the A-G had previously said he would