KUALA LUMPUR, May 16 — Former attorney general (AG) Tan Sri Tommy Thomas has outright accused the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) of continuing to lie about his involvement with Riza Aziz’s settlement.
In a press statement today, Thomas gave a detailed account of the case’s timeline, starting from the moment when Riza was first charged by the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) on July 5, 2019 to the Sessions Court’s May 14 discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) decision.
“In these circumstances, MACC had actual knowledge that the final paragraph of the Press Statement that ‘the agreement between the prosecution and the accused through representation in court was a decision considered and agreed by the former attorney general, Tan Sri Tommy Thomas’ is clearly false,” he said.
The press statement in question was dated May 14 with the title: “Court Grants Discharge Not Amounting to Acquittal to Riza Aziz, Government Will Recover US$107.3 million in Assets”.
“To compound matters, after I corrected MACC’s false statement on the evening of May 14, MACC responded by stating that they stood by their first statement. This is absolutely shocking because MACC were continuing with the lie after the truth had been pointed out to them.
“It defies credibility that if their fiction has any factual foundation, it would mean that I took the decision to drop the prosecution against Riza on or before February 28, 2020, but my decision was only implemented in Court two and a half months thereafter, and not at the earliest opportunity which was March 12, 2020,” continued Thomas.
Thomas elaborated that Riza, who is the stepson of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and was embroiled in the 1MDB financial scandal, was first charged on his instruction as attorney general on July 5, 2019.
He added that the only other decision that he made was to appoint Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram to lead the prosecution, saying that he left the day-to-day handling of the cases to Sri Ram and the deputy public prosecutor (DPP) from the AGC.
On November 18, 2019, Riza’s lawyers had submitted written representations seeking a review of the criminal charges proffered against their client.
Thomas explained that written requests are a normal procedure and that there is nothing sinister about it.
However, he added that he never agreed to their request for a discharge and passed the letter to Sri Ram to study and recommend a response to the AG.
“This letter was passed to Gopal Sri Ram to study and to recommend a response to me. On February 28, 2020, I resigned as attorney general. Until my resignation, I had not received any advice from Sri Ram. Thus, I did not decide on the representations of Riza prior to my resignation.
“At a case management before Sessions Court Judge, Tuan Azman Ahmad, on March 12, 2020, the DPP applied for a new date of the case, to allow AGC to make a decision on the representation submitted by Riza.
“DPP’s request was to allow the newly appointed attorney general time to review the representation, according to media reports. Apparently, the case was postponed to April 2,” said Thomas.
Finally, at the case management on May 14, the Sessions Court had granted Riza a DNAA in relation to his criminal charges on the application made by ad hoc prosecutor Gopal.
Thomas pointed out that no decision was made by the prosecution on the case as late as April 2. The decision was made more than a month after he resigned from his post, observing that it must have been made between April 2 and May 14 when he no longer held the position of AG.
