Yg Bhg Dato’ Sri Ahmad Said Hamdan,

Your interview was reported in the Sunday Star of March 1.

While I read with interest the interview, yet I was surprised over what you said with regards to the findings of the ACA on Anwar Ibrahim’s report against the attorney-general and the IGP. You were reported to have said:

‘We know this is very sensitive and we know this will be blasted by people if we didn’t handle it properly, so we requested the solicitor-general to appoint three independent persons under the Criminal Procedure Code. Two were former federal court judges.

‘They read the investigation papers independently and each of them independently found that the allegation made by Anwar is baseless. They did not sit down together or discuss it and they did not meet. They did it independently of each other. No officer from the AG’s office was involved in that decision-making process.

‘None, I guarantee you. We went to the extent of appointing independent persons. But how can we make the public believe the findings? Do you think when we release this information, the public will accept it? What more do you want us to do?’

This revelation is most disturbing coming from you as chief commissioner of the newly- established Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. It warrants some answers to the following questions:

1. What provision in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) empowers you to request the solicitor- general to appoint three independent persons to study investigation papers and advice? I have searched the CPC and could not find any such provision. Was it an exercise undertaken extra- legally to give a semblance of independence to the investigation?

2. Who were these independent persons? On what basis did you or the solicitor-general evaluate their independence and impartiality? You said that two were former federal court judges.

You appreciate that a few former federal court judges’ independence, impartiality, credibility and integrity were publicly called into question recently? That the three came to the conclusion that the allegation made by Anwar was ‘baseless’ is incredible.

3. Anwar Ibrahim lodged the report on July 1, 2008. His statement was recorded by the ACA on July 17 and 21, 2008. About a month later you were quoted in the media to have said that the investigations would then soon be completed.

Why was Anwar as the complainant not informed of the progress of the investigations? Why was he not informed that you had invited independent persons and to let him know who these persons were?

Why was he not personally informed of the outcome of the investigation instead of having to learn of it from your interview?

Is not there some transparency and accountability (the want of which is often the root cause of corruption in public administration) applied and practised in your agency? At least, one would have expected complainants to be kept informed of the progress of investigations into their complaints.

I am writing this letter openly to you so that you could respond publicly to the questions. I was with Anwar when his statement was recorded by your officers.

If you decide not to respond publicly then at least you owe the complainant the answers to these questions. But I feel you also owe the general public the answers for the sake of public confidence-building in the MACC.

Both the complainant and the general public cannot rely on your simple personal ‘guarantee’ of an impartial and credible investigation.