MACC gave Tommy Thomas 681 names to be charged in the 1MDB case but only FOUR went to court. Why?

Updated 1234pm Nov 05 // Read also EdisiSiasat and Latifah Koyak: Moneypulasi

WHEN TOMMY THOMAS was the Attorney-General, new and smelling likes roses, and the Pakatan Harapan government led by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was in power (and witch-hunting was hot in progress), the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) offered 861 681 names of individuals and entities to be charged for alleged corruption, alleged money laundering and alleged other crimes related to dethroned PM Najib Razak’s 1MDB. Tommy Thomas decided, and it would have absolutely nothing to do with selective prosecution or political pressure, if you ask him, to charge only FOUR. No action was taken against 857 677 others that had been identified and investigated by our anti-graft body. The MACC chief then was Latifah Koya, a shrilled  voice of civil conscience until landing herself that powerful job, thanks to Dr Mahathir (and her souring ties with her own party president Anwar Ibrahim). Anyone remember her making a fuss about Tommy Thomas’ call? I don’t. 

So if it wasn’t politics or a desire to kick Najib while he was down, why did the AG Tommy Thomas decide NOT to charge all 861 681 individuals and entities on MACC’s list?

In his article in The Vibes today, lawyer Rajan Navaratnam offered possible reasons for what many have already concluded as selective prosecution on the part of the Attorney-General’s Chamber.

Excerpts: 

IN the past, there have been cases where the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) – on the recommendation of several law enforcement agencies – had withdrawn charges that were preferred against several individuals such as Datuk Noor Ehsanuddin Mohd Harun Narrashid, Riza Shahriz Abdul Aziz, and Datuk Seri Ahmad Maslan, involving alleged crimes of corruption and money laundering.

The AGC in exercising its discretion was criticised by several quarters – although in some cases, the court had only granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal, which means the prosecution has the power to reinstate the said charges at a future date. 

 

Read lawyer Rajan Navaratnam’s thought-provoking (A timely consideration for deferred prosecution agreements).