Guan Eng’s bungalow case wasn’t settled in court, Najib tells MACC chief
PETALING JAYA: Former prime minister Najib Razak today challenged Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief Latheefa Koya over her remarks on Lim Guan Eng’s bungalow purchase case, saying she is wrong as the case is not yet settled.
Latheefa had said that MACC will be reviewing old cases, but not Lim’s purchase of a bungalow while serving as chief minister of Penang.
She said MACC could not review it as the case had gone through the courts.
“If a particular case has gone to court, once a court case is over and it is closed, it will not make sense to reopen it unless there are new updates,” she said.
But Najib disagreed, saying, “This is not right. The case has not been settled.”
In a Facebook post, he said Lim’s case was dropped by the court because the attorney-general (AG) appointed by Pakatan Harapan filed an application saying they did not want to continue prosecution.
AG Tommy Thomas
described by Human Rights lawyer Edmund Bon as a 'passive recipient of instructions'
He said this was why MACC, under the former chief commissioner who was also a PH appointee, was shocked at the decision of the court and prosecution team.
“The bungalow case has not been settled in court; the prosecution was withdrawn by the AG,” he said.
Last year, Lim and businesswoman Phang Li Khoon were acquitted of the corruption charges levelled against them in 2016 after the public prosecutor decided to drop the case.
Lim was charged with abusing his position as chief minister by approving a land deal as well as purchasing a bungalow at below market price from Phang.
He was also accused of failing to declare his relationship and interests in a state planning committee meeting where he approved the rezoning application of two pieces of land from agricultural to public housing by MESB, where Phang is a director.
Your Najib has Zero, nay, Negative credibility.ReplyDelete
Already Stale/Basi politiking, when no solid evidence to the charges can be found to proceed and thus dropped by the Court earlier.
Why don't Ahjibkor make a new police report if he has solid evidences to be investigated again by MACC or PDRM and send again to the AG to be brought to court?
Anyone believe a Kleptocrat preaching about Moralties or Rule of Laws?
an ag that dance to tune.ReplyDelete
Maybe the same medicine as jibby's appointment of that lalang ag, apandi, to clear him of all (mis)deeds in 1MDB!
Then, also at least the the bungalow case had gone through the due legal processes while still under apandi's watch!
Why couldn't jibby nailed lge once for all in the same mannerism as mamak handling manmanlai's sodomee case?
Ooop… jibby was too nice a person? Or there was really no concrete case to finish off the then?
Only the ketuanan freaks/zombies will continuously indulge in this bungalow case due to their mental inclinations ofvdap hatred.
Look like u too have such inclination - the same pet cat been mistreated by lge?
Prosecution and Defence lawyers and a Judge were involved. I think this sounds like a court. And the court settled the case - Lim and Phang were both discharged and acquitted.ReplyDelete
And stop hounding Tommy. He was not involved.
Charges against Guan Eng dropped due to fresh evidence, says AGC
FMT Reporters - September 4, 2018
KUALA LUMPUR: Attorney-General (AG) Tommy Thomas had no hand in the decision to drop the graft case against Lim Guan Eng and Phang Li Koon, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said today in response to criticism by various groups and individuals.
The head of the Appellate and Trial Division at the AGC, deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Mohamad Hanafiah Zakaria, also said he had made the decision to enter nolle prosequi (where the public prosecutor does not propose to further prosecute an accused) in light of new evidence and knowing that the case would not succeed.
He said he informed Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) director of the Legal and Prosecution Division and DPP Masri Mohd Daud, who was at that time in Penang, of his decision at 7.18am yesterday. He only informed Thomas at 9.44am.
Thomas had recused himself from all deliberations regarding the case and that he would not be involved in any decision the AGC would make in the matter.
He said the AGC, wanting a fresh view of the case, had tasked him with making the decision as he had not participated in the case earlier.
“Accordingly, I was able to consider the matter from a fresh perspective,” he said, adding that he went through the evidence from the MACC investigations and the evidence that had been adduced and tested under cross-examination in court so far.
“I concluded that as a result of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses who had testified so far, the evidence supporting the first charge under Section 23 of the MACC Act and under Section 165 of the Penal Code had been substantially weakened.
“This conclusion was made in light of fresh evidence that had arisen during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.”
Knowing that the case against the two would not succeed at the end of the prosecution case, Mohamad Hanafiah said he decided to enter nolle prosequi against them in accordance with Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
“In spite of the prosecution request for the court to order a discharge not amounting to acquittal, the court made an order for a discharge and acquittal. This was upon the application of the counsel for the accused and in accordance with Section 254(3) of the CPC.
“I wish to reiterate that the practice of entering nolle prosequi is not something out of the ordinary. This practice has been exercised in many other cases upon representation by counsel and upon discovery of fresh evidence or that the evidence had weakened under cross-examination.
“Similarly, in the case against Lim Guan Eng and Phang Li Koon, there was fresh evidence that was not previously considered.”
He reiterated that the decision to initiate or discontinue any prosecution lay with the public prosecutor.
“In this case, I kept confidential my decision until the very last minute and did not consult the investigative agency fearing it might leak and cause unnecessary alarm. In fact, my decision was so confidential that I only informed the AG personally at 9.44 am yesterday.
“I wish to stress that I decided on the representations without any influence from any quarters.