On March 4, 2016, the auditor-general’s final report on the 1MDB investigation had been tabled to the Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC). That auditor-general’s report on 1MDB was classified at that time as an official secret under the Official Secrets Act (OSA).

On March 7, 2016, PAC chairperson Hasan Arifin said “In today’s meeting, Tan Sri Ambrin Buang, the auditor-general, explained that after the PAC report is tabled in Parliament, the 1MDB final audit report will no longer be an official secret document under the Official Secrets Act 1972”.

On March 28, 2016, as stated above, it was reported that Pandan MP YB Rafizi Ramli had purportedly revealed details from what he claimed was an excerpt of the auditor-general’s report on 1MDB proving that the government investment arm was partly to blame for delays in the Armed Forces Fund Board’s (LTAT) gratuity payments.

It was reported on April 4, 2016 in the Edge that the PAC was rushing to complete the 1MDB report and hopes to table it in Parliament by Thursday, April 7, 2016.

On April 5, 2016, Rafizi was arrested for purportedly breaching the Official Secrets Act and thereafter charged, and as you would have known by now, was convicted yesterday.

So, all of are wondering, what is the big deal here? After all, once the PAC report on the 1MDB was tabled in Parliament, the auditor-general’s report on 1MDB would no longer be classified as an official secret under the Official Secrets Act. Perhaps YB Rafizi was a little bit too eager or enthusiastic, but that’s not an offence by any means. He just probably couldn’t wait for a week.

In any event, as a parliamentarian, he is just disclosing something that would be out in Parliament anyway.

But little did Rafizi know that no one eventually kept to their words or knew what they were saying.

On April 7, 2016, the PAC had tabled its report in Parliament.

However, strangely, the Dewan Rakyat speaker had reportedly refused to table the auditor-general’s report on 1MDB on the ground that it was still classified as a secret document under the Official Secrets Act.

It was also reported that the auditor-general had informed the Dewan Rakyat speaker that his report on 1MDB has not been declassified. The speaker was reported to have told the Dewan Rakyat: “I was told by the auditor-general (Ambrin Buang) himself that the report has yet to be declassified.”

On May 18, 2016, the PAC chairperson was responding to certain quarters who wanted to know the reason for the report’s classification under the Official Secrets Act. He said: “The cabinet requested the National Audit Department to prepare an audit (on 1MDB) and present it to the PAC. Whether or not the report should be declassified, is entirely up to the government.”

The perplexing thing

But here is the perplexing thing. During the trial of YB Rafizi’s case on July 25, 2016 when the auditor-general was asked what was the reason that the 1MDB report was still classified under the OSA, the auditor-general told the court this: “There’s no need to declassify. PAC decided the 1MDB report does not need to be included in the PAC report. I respect the decision.”

The auditor-general went on to say: “I am not well-versed (with the law), whether my decision to respect the PAC decision was against the constitution.”

There you have it. A classic case of ‘no one knows what they are talking about’.

First the PAC chairperson tells us that the auditor-general told him that the 1MDB report would be declassified once tabled in the Parliament. Then the Dewan Rakyat speaker tells us that the auditor-general told him that the 1MDB report is still not declassified. Later the PAC chairperson tells us that it is entirely up to the government whether the 1MDB report would be declassified.

And then in court, the auditor-general spills the beans and tells us that it was the PAC that decided the 1MDB report does not need to be included in the PAC report.

It makes you wonder whether did any of the relevant parties actually had any intention in the first place to disclose the 1MDB report to the public? It appears not.

Sadly, in the midst of all these, YB Rafizi, who would have somewhat relied on all these so-called words or promises from the PAC chairperson and the auditor-general when exposing what he was told would be exposed eventually in Parliament, has now found himself in breach of a law, that he legitimately expected not to apply to him (moreover as a parliamentarian) as a result of all the words spoken or promises made by the PAC chairperson and the auditor-general.

PUTHAN PERUMAL is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya.