OPEN LETTER TO THE AG AND MACC ON THE FULL ACQUITTAL OF NOR EHSANUDDIN MOHD HARUN

 by e.s.shankar

Why do you stay in prison when the door is so wide open? Rumi. 1207-1273.

In February 2019, Ex-Kota Tinggi MP and Felda Director Nor Ehsanuddin Mohd Harun Narrashid was charged with 29 counts of alleged bribery/corruption. 24 prosecution witnesses had already testified in court since then and in December 2020, the DPP announced that 16 more witnesses would be called up.

Then suddenly on 1 September 2021, it was announced that the DPP had withdrawn all 29 charges and Ehsanuddin fully acquitted. The DPP had apparently agreed to the acquittal on 21 May 2021. Click Here. Why was it kept secret for 3 months?

On 6 September, the MACC gave the following explanation. Click Here.

1. It had referred the case back to the Attorney General's (AG) Chambers as a decision was made to withdraw the charges based on the latest developments.

2. The DPP’s withdrawal of all 29 charges was based on verified facts from further investigations.

3. Based on new findings obtained through Ehsanuddin's new defense statement, the accused successfully proved that he had paid back the sum in question before the start of the initial investigation.

4. A key witness also confirmed the matter (money) as advances.

5. The decision was also made because statements from the key witness were inconsistent.

Matters were thrown further into further confusion when on 8 September, the Chairman of the Anti-Corruption Advisory Committee (AAAC), Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang, once an UMNO politician, is reported to have said that the MACC’s investigations:

1. Were unprofessional.

2. Influenced by political considerations. Click Here.

Understandably many members of the public were dismayed and angry. Transparency International Malaysia (TI-M) President Muhammad Mohan said that the AG/MACC decision came as a shock to civil society. Others have written that MACC’s explanations and clarifications did not pass the smell test.

So, here are some questions to the AG/MACC, the answers to which will greatly help us understand why all the charges against Ehsanuddin were dropped and he was not given a DNAA (discharge not amounting to an acquittal), but fully acquitted.

1. Before the date the charges were filed in court, had MACC checked with the alleged bribers whether Ehsanuddin had made any payments to them?

2. Had they then checked his or the alleged bribers’ bank accounts and inspected their books and records for official receipts?

3. OR, is the MACC now admitting that it did not carry out proper investigations before the charges were made in court, i.e. that they were grossly negligent?

4. Later Ehsanuddin submitted that payments had been made BEFORE the start of the initial investigations:

(a) Who made the payments? Ehsanuddin, a family member or a 3^rd party? If not Ehsanuddin himself, what is the name of that party?

(b) How was this payment made - cash, cheque, bank draft, TT, online banking transfer?

(c) Did MACC check his or the alleged bribers’ bank accounts, bank transaction vouchers and inspect their books and records for official receipts?

5. Did MACC verify if Ehsanuddin had sufficient personal/family wealth and means to make those repayments?

6. Does the “key witness” have the expertise to determine if the payments to Ehsanuddin were “advances” and not alleged bribes?

7. IF the “key witness” was the alleged briber, why would MACC accept his opinion that the payments were “advances” and not alleged bribes?

8. At the time the charges were filed, the “key witnesses” would have been required to sign a SD. If his statements now are inconsistent with what he swore earlier in the SD, would that not mean perjury (lying under oath)? Is MACC going to charge this “key witness” with perjury or let him go scot free?

9. Under Malaysian law, whether or not a person repaid money received as an alleged bribe, like the crime of Criminal Breach of Trust (CBT), he is still guilty of a crime. Was this not discussed with the AG and a DNAA requested instead of a full acquittal?

10. Does the MACC accept the accusation against it that it had acted unprofessionally and was influenced by political considerations? If not, will it be taking legal action soon against AAAC Chairman Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang to clear its image, name, reputation and integrity as an independent enforcement agency that acts without fear or favor?

Thank you.