KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 3 — Unconvinced by the Attorney-General’s reason for deciding against appealing the recent acquittal of former transport minister Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik in a high-profile cheating case, a DAP MP today pressed Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail for more answers.

DAP’s Gobind Singh Deo cast doubt over Abdul Gani’s remarks, demanding to know if the top government lawyer had decided to press charges against Dr Ling even when a key witness insisted that he was not cheated.

“It is hard to believe that the AG would have gone all the way with the prosecution especially in such a high profile case if he knew that the main witness would say he was not cheated. But the AG did. So what happened? “ the Puchong MP asked in a statement.

Yesterday, Abdul Gani was reported by news portal Malaysiakini to have said: “When your main witness says he is not cheated, what case do we have? The court threw out the case by this finding of fact.”

Gobind then presented two possible alternative scenarios, asking if Abdul Gani had known of the unnamed main witness’s testimony before deciding to charge Dr Ling for allegedly cheating the government and the Cabinet into a land purchase for the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) project.

“The AG must tell us. Was a statement recorded from the main witness in this case? If yes, did this main witness say in that statement that he was cheated? If he didn’t and the AG knew from the start that the main witness was not going to say he was cheated, then why was Dr Ling charged?

“Of course, the other side of it is even more serious. If indeed a statement was recorded from the main witness and he did he say he was cheated, did he later change his story at the trial? Did he contradict himself? If so, what has the Attorney-General done about it?” Gobind asked.

Earlier in the same statement, Gobind described Abdul Gani’s remark as “strange”, insisting that the Attorney-General and the prosecution team should have known about the statement of the “‘main witness” before and during the cheating trial.

“Didn’t the police interview its main witness during investigations before Dr Ling was charged? Didn’t the Attorney-General study the statement of his main witness before making a decision to charge Dr Ling? Didn’t the prosecuting team re-read its main witness’s statement again before the start of the trial and during the course of the trial?

“And if Dr Mahathir Mohamad was this main witness, why wasn’t he called by the prosecution during the trial as a prosecution witness? Why was he called as a witness by the defence instead? And even until this stage, didn’t the prosecution know what he would say?” he asked.

In the report by news portal Malaysiakini yesterday, Abdul Gani did not explicitly name the “main witness”, but it is likely that the government’s top lawyer was alluding to former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, with Dr Ling previously serving in his Cabinet.

During the trial, Dr Mahathir and several other Cabinet ministers had testified that they were not deceived or cheated by Dr Ling in the land buy for the PKFZ project, which later cost the government to suffer losses after the land’s cost ballooned.

Gobind also attacked Abdul Gani’s explanation yesterday that it would be difficult for the government to appeal as the High Court’s acquittal was based on findings of fact, rather than the law which the prosecution could still argue on.

Gobind called it a “weak excuse”, saying that even if the court had made a decision against the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) based on findings of facts, it was common for the prosecution to file an appeal.

“It is open for any appellant to argue on appeal that a trial judge was wrong in his assessment of the facts of any particular case for many reasons and appeals have been allowed in such cases as well,” the lawyer said, insisting that the prosecution could have tried to appeal the decision.

On October 25, High Court judge Datuk Ahmadi Asnawi ruled that Dr Ling’s lawyers managed to raise reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case and acquitted the former MCA president from the cheating charges hanging over his head since the trial started in August 2011.

Dr Ling, who was Malaysia’s transport minister for 17 years from January 1986 to May 2003, was charged in July 2010 with deceiving the Cabinet into approving the land purchase for the PKFZ project, despite knowing that the approval would result in wrongful losses for the government.

Dr Ling also faced two alternative charges of deceiving the Cabinet into believing that the land purchase’s terms — at RM25 psf plus 7.5 per cent interest — had the acknowledgment and agreement of the Land Valuation and Property Services Department (JPPH) despite knowing that there was no such agreement.

The criminal offences were allegedly committed between September 25 and November 6 in 2002, a few months before he stopped serving as a transport minister.