He questioned why evidence related to the case was publicly disclosed before the investigation was concluded."Normally, evidence is presented during court proceedings."However, in this case, despite the probe being incomplete, key materials have already been exhibited in a press conference. What is the purpose of this?” he said.
Naser Abd Hadi of Persatuan Anti Korupsi found nothing unusual with the investigation. The Star published his letter today:
Transparency and MACC practices in high-profile investigations
By NASIR AB HADI
LETTERS
Wednesday, 19 Mar 2025
The allegation by Pasir Gudang MP Hassan Abdul Karim that there are "irregularities" in the investigation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) into former prime minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob must be carefully evaluated.
Several aspects need to be clarified to ensure the public understands that MACC operates in accordance with principles of justice and transparency, consistent with established practices and procedures in previous high-profile investigations.
Hassan said that MACC violated professional ethics by announcing the investigation into Ismail Sabri to the public before the former prime minister was proven guilty. However, looking at past cases, this practice is not unusual.
For example, in 2018, when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad returned as prime minister, he publicly stated that Datuk Seri Najib Razak was the main suspect in the 1MDB case.
This statement was made before any formal prosecution took place.
This demonstrates that announcing investigations into high-profile individuals is neither new nor unethical; rather, it is aimed at assuring the public that the investigation is being conducted seriously.
Official confirmation from the authorities that a leader is under investigation is crucial, especially when various unfounded accusations and baseless claims circulate on social media.
This step not only prevents speculation that could tarnish the reputation of the individuals and authorities involved but also ensures transparency and public confidence in the justice system.
Additionally, Hassan questioned MACC’s practice of announcing investigations before cases are brought to court.
In reality, this practice has not only occurred in Ismail Sabri’s case but has also been applied to many other cases involving politicians and influential figures.
For example:
- 1MDB Case (2018) – During the investigation into Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the police displayed seized cash, jewellery, and luxury goods valued at RM880mil to the media before he was charged in court;
- Sabah Water Department Case (2016) – MACC revealed a stash of cash amounting to over RM114mil seized from senior officials of the Sabah state government who were under investigation for corruption; and
- Counter Setting Case (2024) – MACC displayed jewellery and stacks of cash amounting to approximately RM800,000, allegedly seized from the bedroom of a senior Immigration officer before anyone was prosecuted.
In all these cases, revealing seized assets was not a form of premature prosecution but part of the transparency of the investigative process.
It assured the public that the authorities were carrying out their duties properly and that the confiscated assets genuinely existed.
MACC is an independent body that acts based on evidence and information obtained during its investigations.
The allegation that MACC acts selectively or has a specific agenda is baseless, as the commission’s investigation records show that leaders from various political parties, including Barisan Nasional, Pakatan Harapan, Perikatan Nasional, MUDA, and Parti Warisan Sabah, have been investigated.
For example:
- Lim Guan Eng (2020) – Investigated and charged in connection with the Penang undersea tunnel project;
- Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin (2023) – Investigated regarding the Jana Wibawa program;
- Syed Saddiq Abdul Rahman (2020) – Investigated, charged, and convicted of criminal breach of trust; and
- Datuk Peter Anthony (2020) – Investigated and charged with criminal breach of trust and abuse of power related to a maintenance contract for University Malaysia Sabah (UMS).
All these examples prove that MACC operates based on legal principles and does not engage in selective investigations.
Hassan’s allegation that there are "irregularities" in MACC’s investigation into Ismail Sabri is unfounded when compared with past cases.
Investigations into high-profile individuals in an open manner are common practice and are not unethical as long as they are based on solid evidence.
Given the track record of previous investigations, it is evident that MACC operates consistently regardless of the individual or political party involved.
Therefore, the claim that MACC is acting unprofessionally or with bias is without merit.
Accordingly, MACC’s actions in Ismail Sabri’s case are in line with past practices and should not be deemed a violation of professional ethics. It is important to remember that during investigations, law enforcement agencies have the discretion to determine the best approach to ensure transparency and justice in executing their duties.
Any concerns regarding investigative procedures should be channelled through appropriate avenues, such as the Special Committee on Corruption (JKMR), to uphold MACC’s integrity and professionalism without compromising the ongoing investigation process.
NASIR AB HADI
President
Pertubuhan Anti-Korupsi Malaysia (Pakar)
MACC allowed Ismail Sabri some leeway. He was detained like any suspect would usually have to undergo in a normal course of investigation.
He was at MACC office for the sixth time today.
Earlier, a money changer was apprehended and probably linked to the foreign currency found. Thus far, 36 individuals have recorded statements to MACC including 32 witnesses and four detained Ismail Sabri’s former officers. Additionally, 23 new witnesses are expected to be called.
Words over the grapevine is that few had admitted keeping money for Ismail. And, possibly other witness revealed other safe houses where more money kept for Ismail. What would be Ismail's response to such claims? And, can the money proven to be linked to Ismail?
In the meanwhile, Ismail denied that he and 13 others have withdrawn support from the Unity Government on Sunday.
No comments:
Post a Comment