In the space of three weeks, Attorney-General (AG) Abdul Gani Patail has absolved three high-profile personalities of allegations of corruption.

With a stroke of the pen, therefore, he has miraculously rescued the administration of premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi from a crisis of confidence precipitated by the almost simultaneous eruption of corruption scandals earlier this year.

By doing so, too, the AG has also turned the tables on those webmasters and bloggers who brought the scandals to light. And this has enabled the embattled Umno leadership to launch a counter-offensive against these cyberspace "troublemakers".

Under Article 145 (3) of the constitution, the AG has the power to decide whether or not to prosecute a criminal case. This powerful position was enhanced during the premiership of Dr Mahathir Mohamad when the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) was made to channel its cases to the AG for prosecution.

This undoubtedly facilitated the rapid expansion of cronyism and cover-up of corruption among the elite then and looks set to do so again under Abdullah's leadership.

When it comes to criminal investigations of VIPs that might embarrass the ruling coalition, investigation papers remain with the AG for an indeterminate period - perhaps activated when the occasion so suits the political masters. The AG's office has thus becomes the escape route for the police and ACA.

Having sat on these corruption reports for months for no credible reason, the AG's sudden burst of energy to almost simultaneously pronounce the innocence of the three individuals has been met with widespread scepticism.

His decisions beget more questions than answers. I will deal separately with the cases.

Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan

What the AG said:

Based on ACA investigations, allegations of corruption against Musa were found to be groundless, because a check of his bank account statements and properties revealed nothing suspicious.

On the IGP and his officers allegedly receiving RM2 million to free three detainees of a betting syndicate detained in Kluang - the trio were wrongfully detained on March 30 based on a fake statement bearing forged signatures of six individuals, five of whom were in the Kluang police lock-up, while the sixth had been taken to court at the stipulated time.

The three were released on April 6 on the order of CID deputy director (intelligence/operations) Khalid Abu Bakar, who was instructed by Musa to probe the case upon a tip-off that there was victimisation. Khalid also recommended disciplinary action against police officers involved.

My questions:

  • If police officers perpetrating this victimisation are guilty, why haven't they been charged in court?

  • If the three detainees are innocent, why haven't they complained about wrongful detention over seven days and seek compensation?

  • If it was a simple case of victimisation, why did Deputy Internal Security Minister Mohd Johari Baharum insist that the ACA must probe the corruption allegations? Johari was reported as having said on July 11 that he was not satisfied with explanations by the police and that he was not given documents he wanted.

  • Why didn't the AG also touch on other equally important aspects of allegations against Musa, such as his allegedly intimate relations with underworld kingpins whose names were revealed?

  • Is it the ACA modus operandi to check only a suspect's bank statements and properties? Will a criminal allow illegal income be reflected in his bank statements and properties?

  • If Musa is innocent, shouldn't he have defended his honour and that of the police force by demanding justice from his accusers?

(Former) ACA Director-General Zulkipli Mat Nor

What the AG said:

The allegations were found to be only assumptions because there was no documentary evidence.

My questions:

  • Is it common practice to expect a whistleblower to produce hard evidence for prosecution? Is it not the job of the law enforcement agency to search for evidence since it has the legal power and resources to do so?

  • There are contradictory assertions over the allegation of sexual misconduct. The AG has tagged the case as 'NFA' (no further action) for lack of evidence. However, Musa had been quoted as saying on March 1 the AG had not responded to the police investigation report and that a second report had been submitted the previous day. Will the AG please explain?

  • If allegations were found to be baseless in April (or March), wouldn't a prompt announcement be the natural choice of action by a clean AG in a clean government? Why prolong the matter?

  • If Zulkipli is innocent and the investigations were above board, why hasn't the government promptly charged Ramli with making a false report?

  • Similarly, shouldn't Zulkipli be taking taken legal action against Ramli?

  • Is the government prepared to make full disclosure of the investigations to dispel the cloud of suspicion?

Deputy Internal Security Minister Mohd Johari Baharum

What the AG said:

Johari was cleared of involvement in the 'freedom for sale' scandal as "the ACA was unable to find any statement to link Johari to the alleged offence"; "the said criminals had denied giving Johari money as a bribe"; "related statements of accounts were scrutinised"; and "several criminals who are important witnesses could not be traced after their release".

My questions:

  • Why did it take the AG so long to come to this conclusion? His explanation was that "the ACA investigation took some time as statements of accounts had to be analysed and statements had to be taken from relevant witnesses, and tracing witnesses also took some time". What a pack of lies when the acting ACA head had said that investigations were completed shortly after March 19!

  • Does anyone expect criminals to admit giving bribes and show the necessary accounts? The AG must take the public for fools if he expects us to swallow such remarks.

  • As to the detention, release and re-arrest of the three criminal bosses allegedly involved, who is at fault - Johari or the police? Was this wrongful detention or wrongful release? If they are big-time criminals, why release them at all? Isn't the Emergency Ordinance created to detain such people without trial? Why hold the small fry and spare the bosses?

PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi

His response is perhaps the saddest aspect of the scam encapsulated by the AG's decisions.

What he said:

He expressed satisfaction with the AG's announcement and asked that discussion of the allegations against Musa and Zulkipli be dropped since there is no evidence.

When reporters pressed for details of the investigation reports, he snapped: "Don't ask me about the contents of the investigations. That is not my job." (Sin Chew Daily, July 29).

My questions:

  • Mr Prime Minister, if this is not your job, then what is? All these scandal-ridden officials report to you as internal security minister.

  • Don't you realise that the AG's announcements have not only failed to restore confidence in your administration, but have caused further disillusionment with your leadership?

  • As prime minister, it is you - not the IGP or the ACA head - who is directly answerable to the people who elected you. So, is it too much of the reporter to ask you about the substance of the investigations to allay public distrust?

Thus far, you have answered critical questions with "I don't know" too many times. Don't let the answer "This is not my job" become another trademark of your premiership.