Inconsistency in the testimony of prosecution witnesses has been one main reason for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission losing in court.

corruption charges MACC in its 2010 Annual Report said that there were also witnesses unwilling to give evidence and turned over because they had the same interests as the accused or were afraid that their testimony would have negative implications on themselves and their livelihood.

These were among the findings of the MACC special panel set up to study corruption cases lost in court and related issues such as witnesses changing their testimony.

"Most of the prosecution witnesses in corruption cases had been asked to cooperate and give evidence, and had not come forward voluntarily.

"The testimony of the witnesses in court was beyond the control of the prosecution or MACC," the report said.

 About-face

According to the report, one way that the problem of witnesses doing an about-face was being handled was by taking legal action.

It cited an example where nine prosecution witnesses who changed their testimony in court were charged with giving false evidence.

MACC said that such action could deter future witnesses from betraying the prosecution.

The commission also had the problem of not having enough deputy public prosecutors or prosecuting officers who were experienced to face defence lawyers who were expert at handling corruption cases.

The report said that efforts had been made to have DPPs with at least three years experience to handle a corruption case.

"The understanding of Sessions Court judges or magistrates of procedure in investigating and proving corruption cases was also a factor where many cases in the lower courts went against the prosecution," the report said.

Corroborating this view, the report cited 31 cases that the high court ordered to be tried on appeal by the prosecution after the lower courts had dismissed them.

- Bernama