[Straight Talk] Tommy Thomas: Setting the record straight

I guess I'm an easy punching bag. I'm not a politician, and I don't have the backing of any political party. So all these people who are there—there are any number of members in the current cabinet who are also members of the Dr. Marte cabinet. Whenever they saw me, they were very excited. They said, "You're doing the right thing. Charge ahead!"

But they are silent now. I can't understand that, you know. What is the right thing, charge and all, but they are silent now. I can't understand that, you know. Welcome to state talk.

Today, I’ll be sitting down with Tan Sri Tommy Thomas, the former Attorney General, who is very much in the news these days. As you know, it was during Tommy's time as AG that the likes of former Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and current Deputy Prime Minister Zahid Hamidi were charged with dozens of counts of corruption, abuse of power, criminal breach of trust, and money laundering. At that time, if you remember, there was great public jubilation that finally action was being taken after years of impunity. In my view, it was one of the high points of the second Mahathir administration. I remember so well how Malaysians were glued to their televisions as they watched the raids on Najib's home and the stash of jewelry, watches, handbags, and cash that was seized by the police.

The fall of the PH administration and the subsequent resignation of Tommy Thomas in February 2020, along with the untimely death of lead prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram in January of last year, have led to the unraveling of much that was previously achieved. If you recall, Zaid Hamidi was granted a DNAA last September. Najib received a partial pardon and was granted a DNAA in another case just last month. As these cases continue, there appears to be a concerted effort to portray Najib as a victim of political prosecution. People are wondering if further DNAA might be forthcoming.

Tommy himself has been accused of being incompetent, of prematurely rushing to file charges, and even of leading a witch hunt. With all these things going on at this particular time, there's no better time and no better person to talk to than the man himself to get his side of the story. So, Tan Sri Tommy Thomas, welcome to Straight Talk. With me today is also the very respected Malaysia Kini columnist, P. Gunasegran, who has written extensively on the 1MDB affair. The scandal that brought down a government, which was published in 2018, was a bestseller.

Gunnar, thank you for joining me. Welcome, Danij. Okay, let's get started. Tommy, you were not the first AG, and neither were you the last. Other AGs, when they retired, went on to obtain lucrative appointments in GLCs and other government bodies.

Just yesterday, one of your successors was appointed to a pretty important position. You, on the other hand, have been hounded at every turn. You have been investigated, you have been sued, there has been a commission of inquiry, and now there is the threat of the Royal Commission of Inquiry hanging over you. One former Prime Minister, you might remember, even boasted about providing bullets to nail you. You seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest.

Many ordinary Malaysians, on the other hand, seem to think that you're a hero, one of the few senior officials who did his job without fear or favor. I still see comments in Malaysia Kini and various other places praising you for your courage, conviction, and professionalism. So my question to you is: why do you think you have become such a controversial figure? Is it because you went up against some very powerful people? Was race or religion an issue? Did that have anything to do with it?

Well, thank you, Dennis, and thank you, Gunnar, for inviting me to this dialogue. I'm very grateful to Malaysia Kinney for providing us with these facilities and hosting us. To answer that question, even during the 20 months that I was in office, I was often in the press for the wrong reasons. Of course, thereafter, they left me alone for a little while until the book came out, which was about three and a half years ago. Then the negative publicity returned. I think every time there is a DNA case or a dropping of a case against an accused that I charged, the controversy resurfaces. I guess I'm an easy target.

Punching Bag: I'm not a politician. I don't have the backing of any political party, and I suppose it helps that I'm in the minority. I belong to a minority race and a minority religion for various reasons. I think partly also because I seldom respond; these comments don't provoke me. In fact, this is the first interview I've had in years. I've always declined invitations from the media. Interviewer: Yes, in fact, I was going to ask you, why have you been so quiet? You have Shafi, who is a lawyer for Najib, doing roadshows and making strong statements that are widely covered. But you've been very quiet. Why have you been so quiet?

Well, I think the main reason would be to allow my successors and those in office to say things if they wish, because it mustn't be funny. The public prosecutor, the attorney general, and the public prosecutor—let's look at his capacity as public prosecutor in criminal matters. He represents the people of Malaysia. That's why he's known as the public prosecutor on behalf of the public. So in the U.S. analogy, it is the people of the U.S.

So it's people against O.J. Simpson, the people against Donald Trump. In the United Kingdom, it is the Crown or Regina against John Smith or Adam. In Malaysia, it has always been the Public Prosecutor, but it's often forgotten that you are there on behalf of the people of Malaysia. In fact, the entire Attorney General's Chambers derive and secure their salaries and other benefits from taxpayers' money. Therefore, the taxpayers of Malaysia fund the Attorney General's Chambers, and they have a responsibility to the wider public of Malaysia.

I certainly try to do that, as part of that function is the obligation to be transparent, open, and accountable in major decisions. In either major decisions you make or do not make, sometimes omissions have equally important repercussions. When I took office, there was no tradition or culture in the AGC to issue press statements, and I initiated that practice. In the 22 months that I was in office, we issued 36 press statements, most of which were under my name.

And I believe it's still on the website. Unfortunately, my successors have not continued the tradition. The result of this change is that one side of the adversarial litigation system, namely the accused or the defense and their lawyer, is constantly making press statements, television interviews, and roadshows, or whatever they do. They are always in the public limelight. This is despite the fact that in the SRC case, they lost on four occasions, and only one judge along the way supported them; he is a convict and is serving a sentence.

Despite that, there's such a large amount of publicity that they generate. There's a vacuum because the public prosecutor's office is not responding, and I was hoping they would respond from time to time. Why do you think they haven't responded? You would need to ask them, but I would say that there is a culture of being quiet.

There's a tradition: don't forget that all the thousand six members of the AGC are civil servants. You join the public service. So, I guess, and you will know, Dennis, you were a civil servant before. I think civil servants are conditioned very quickly to remain quiet and to remain silent.

They allow their political masters to make the statements. However, in the case of the Attorney General's office, we haven't had a political Attorney General serving in the cabinet for decades. Therefore, the career Attorney General must, in my opinion, have an obligation, particularly in public interest matters. You had one major public interview after the Supreme Court case was decided in federal court.

This was in September 2022 with James Chai and me regarding Malaysia Guinea. In that three-part interview at that time, you mentioned that, among other things, the federal court cannot be held ransom over its decisions. Could you remind me of the context? What did I mean by saying the federal court cannot be held in ransom? So, the federal court had no option?

You cannot hold the federal court to ransom or blackmail the court. I'm sorry, this is an adversarial system. I always use the sporting analogy: you come for a game of badminton in the finals, and one team does not want to play, complaining about the referee. The match is over.

It is forfeited. I think it could be in context; the question must have been, "How would you comment on the federal court finding him guilty and sending him to jail because the adjournments were denied and their arguments were not, as they say, heard on the merits?" But then, I stand by those answers. However, don't forget that Najib applied for a review of that federal court decision. The review was heard by a different panel of federal court judges—five different judges.

I must tell you that the review jurisdiction only developed about 20 years ago in Malaysia, following the Pinochet series of judgments in the House of Lords. Historically, the apex court was the final court, and litigation ended there. There must be finality to litigation. In the UK, it concluded in the House of Lords; in India, it ended in the Supreme Court of India; and in Malaysia, it concluded in the Supreme Court of the Federal Court. However, in the last 20 years, there has been the introduction of limited review jurisdiction.

Najib went for that, and on a four-to-one basis, the majority of judgments—four judges—stated that it was his fault that he sought justice, and they dismissed his review application. Can I turn to the IPIC case? That is very much in the news now. As you know, both Najib and Irwan were granted DNA testing, which has, of course, created a great deal of concern and public outcry. As part of all this, some individuals are making the accusation or allegation that it was due to your negligence and incompetence that you rushed to lay charges without sufficient grounds and that you were politically motivated.

How do you respond to those allegations? Now, I have to go back to October and September 2018, when we were appointing lawyers in London. The lawyers in London also said, "Look, it appears that there are criminal aspects to this because that's part of your complaint." They asked, "Are there any crimes committed in Malaysia?" We responded, and we believed so. Yes, we did. Fortunately for us, Sri Ram, who had been appointed as the special prosecutor and took office on September 1, 2018, was tasked with the role of special prosecutor.

To go and help in looking at all these matters and to advise because they are white-collar crimes, which are quite difficult. He looked at it and spent a lot of time, and then he came back and said, in his opinion, and he had a team. He marshaled a team of Deputy Public Prosecutors from the Attorney General's Chambers who he could work with. At the end of September, Sriram came to see me and said, "Yes, we have a strong case." In fact, I've taken the liberty of drafting charges. So I said, "Leave it with me." I looked at it, and then Sriram and I had a couple of discussions. After that, I was satisfied, and I charged Najib and Irwan with six counts of criminal breach of trust amounting to up to 6.6 billion ringgit. Essentially, the criminal charges that we instituted under Sriram's leadership, but I took the final decision, stated that in order to make these charges, we should not forget that these events were happening in 2016-2017 as part of the consent award while Najib was still Prime Minister and Irwan was the Chief Secretary of the Ministry of Finance, the top civil servant and top minister. What they did was, in order to pay for the guarantee they had agreed to on behalf of Malaysia, they had to divert funds. So the criminal charge of 6.6 billion, the six charges, which are all public, were for different amounts where the Minister of Finance and the Chief Secretary diverted funds for that purpose. And in law, that would be regarded as criminal breach of trust.

And so those charges were made in October 2018. As I mentioned, I was advised by Malaysia's greatest criminal lawyer, along with a team from the MACC, who were all investigating, reporting to him, and preparing for the case. At that time, Najib was already charged in the SRC for 42 million and the Tanore case regarding 1.6 billion in his bank account. He also faced two other charges. This meant that Najib, as the same accused, was facing five separate criminal prosecutions arising from five distinct crimes and transactions, all defended by the same lawyer. Consequently, our law requires the accused to be in the dock, and it was clear that all five trials could not take place simultaneously.

And so we reached a priority with the courts, very much driven by the prosecution. Of course, the defense wanted everything adjourned, but we pushed, and the order was given: SRC first, Tanore second. Everything else was pushed back. So that is why, when I left office in March-February 2020, the two trials that had started were quite advanced—SRC was before Justice Nazla, and Tanore, prosecuted by Sriram, was just starting before Justice called in Secura.

And then all the other cases were put on the back burner for the practical reason that I gave. I actually just checked online, and according to the report, when the DNA evidence was provided, the trial only started this year in 2024. Let me clarify: it is in 2024 that all the obligations of the prosecution to start the trial began. I want to ask you about this IPIC case because, you know, one of the things that have been widely circulated is the so-called internal memo from the Attorney General's Chambers. The charges in this case were laid on the 23rd of October.

October. Yes. But in September, this memo from the Internal Memo, Attorney General's Chambers, was dated September 10th. Of which year? 2019.

One year later. Yes, one year later. In this memo, the prosecution team, led by Tuan Manoj Kuru, and the individuals with him who were reviewing all these charges, seemed to admit that there was actually insufficient evidence to support them. All the witness testimony they examined gave them the impression that there were really no grounds to charge you. My question to you is, now Najib's team is using this so-called memo that was leaked, and incidentally, it has never been officially denied by the Attorney General's Chambers.

The impression out there is that it is valid; it is real. However, Najib's team is now using this memo to strengthen its claim that there were really no grounds to prosecute him, arguing that this was all part of a political vendetta and that the government of the day was simply going after them because of its agenda. My question is, were you aware of these views, and why did you overrule your prosecution team? Well, I cannot remember being shown that memorandum at that time, or ever. In fact, even today, I still have not seen it.

But this is what I will tell you about the practice and culture in the AGC. Now, all the 1,600 lawyers in the AGC, particularly those who are involved in criminal law and the Senior Federal Council, make decisions at their level daily regarding litigation because the system is decentralized. As Attorney General and Public Prosecutor, only a tiny number of decisions are made by me on behalf of the chambers. That's how the system works; otherwise, it would break down.

So, of all the decisions that I made, and I must submit hundreds of decisions over the course of 22 months—civil and criminal—when I made those decisions, they were communicated downstream, sometimes yes and sometimes no; sometimes it's confidential. In none of the decisions I made was there ever, after I took the decision—not before—where there would be discussion. We are lawyers; we argue and debate and whatever. But after the decision is taken, which is why I mentioned that the charge was on October 18 and the letter was in September 19, one year later, never in my experience did any officer come to me and say, "Look boss, do you remember the decision you took?"

Can we review it? Can we have a second thought? Can we look at it? Never. That is again not the culture of the AGC.

If the boss has decided, they all follow it. So I never saw any memorandum from anybody telling me to revisit any decision. Now, what typically happens is that the defense lawyers send representations to the public prosecutor, to the DPPs, for all their cases. At this moment, a lawyer acting for someone who has been charged with rape in Bentong would be writing to the AGC and saying, "Please reconsider the case; drop the case against my client, Ms. X." These representations come in daily because of the thousands of cases we handle, but they never reached my level.

It's always at the ground level. More importantly, there was no representation, to my memory, that reached me regarding this case. Additionally, Sriram was the head of that team, and he was alive. He was with me in September 2019.

If Sriram had received this memorandum—and I know Sriram well—he would have thrown it in the dustbin. I mean, Sriram was a very strong dominion lawyer, very confident in his ability. He would have scolded them and said, "Am I interested in your opinion? I am leading the team. You either get off the team or stay." So they would not have done it, and even if it had been written, it would have gone through Sriram because everyone on that team knows Sriram is in charge of the IPIC case, just as he was in the Tanore case and the audit report case. So, I never saw that letter.

Do you think that's a valid argument that they couldn't declassify? The question the average person is asking is, if you couldn't declassify, why on earth did you bring charges against him? Surely, you must have done that homework before proceeding. Correct. So, let's start with the Official Secrets Act of Malaysia, which was enacted in 1950, originally established by the British and modeled after a similar law in England from 1911 during the First World War.

It's been exported across the world. The Official Secrets Act allows a minister and a senior civil servant in a particular ministry to do two things. One is to classify a document, information, or material as secret. The same minister and the same officer can also declassify it. One section, I think it is 2(a), allows them to classify.

Another subsection, 2c, allows them to classify. Additionally, subsection 2c enables them to declassify. Of course, there are certain documents that are automatically regarded as secret, such as cabinet papers and national security documents. However, for ordinary documents, classification must take place. Therefore, the first point is that the power to declassify exists.

But more importantly, let's discuss criminal prosecution. In a trial, the government acts as the plaintiff in civil suits, while the public prosecutor represents the government. To succeed in either type of litigation, the government must rely on documents. In other words, if the government does not produce the necessary documents that will strengthen its case, it risks losing. Therefore, it is in the interest of the government that has brought the charges to produce those documents.

It's within your control. For example, consider the case of Harun Idris, a famous case from the 1970s that involved cabinet papers and similar documents. There would typically be declassification in such situations. Declassification is a common procedure in cases involving white-collar crimes related to government documents. As a matter of course, the documents could have been declassified. But why didn’t that happen in this case?

I don't know. So, Nadez, the columnist, wrote an interesting article. He asked the question: Was it incompetency or conspiracy? He seemed to be making the point that the excuse that they could not declassify was just a cover—a convenient excuse to drop the charges. How valid is this question: that we were not able to declassify, therefore we cannot proceed with the case?

Do you see that as a valid argument? Well, I think from a bureaucratic point of view, the process starts with the lawyer, because it could be civil or criminal. The lawyer in the Attorney General's Chambers, Director of Public Prosecutions, or as a Senior Federal Counsel exercises his judgment and says, "I need these five documents. I need these five currently classified documents to win my case." This judgment is within his control; he has seen it, and nobody else has seen it. He needs to produce it to court, so that's the first step. He must make the judgment call. Once he makes that judgment call, he has to communicate with the minister or the appropriate ministry. It could be the Ministry of Agriculture for an agricultural issue, or it could be the Ministry of Education for an education matter, or the Ministry of Finance. He must go to the right ministry, and there will be some dialogue going on. The civil servants may say no, but if the lawyers insist, stating, "In our opinion, it has to be done," it may eventually be granted, although it might be delayed a bit. If it were under my tenure, I would take the initiative as the Attorney General. I would call whoever it is and say, "Can you please declassify it? I want it done in five minutes or by tomorrow morning because, in my opinion, I need the case, and I need the document." It would be done. I'm not unfamiliar with the Official Secrets Act.

Even cabinet decisions, which are supposed to be top secret and protected under the Official Secrets Act, have been declassified. Personally, I tend to agree with Nadia that something doesn't smell right. If you look at the situation, the person who is the Attorney General now was the prosecuting officer when Zahid was given his discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA). He is the same person who would ultimately be responsible for not producing these documents in court and ensuring that the trial proceeds. Additionally, he was actually the Prime Minister's appointment for the position of Attorney General.

From there, one can draw many conclusions. However, that's why I'm not going to comment on all those issues, as it wouldn't be fair for me to discuss either my predecessors or my successors. It simply wouldn't be right, since I lack the full facts. Ultimately, it comes back to the absolute obligation in 2024, in the 21st century, to disclose information to the public.

So all 35 million people in Malaysia are entitled to ask, "Why did this happen?" The only people who can provide an answer are those in power. You can either issue a press statement, which is my preferred method because you have control over the message, or you can hold an interview. If you do not provide either a press statement or an interview, there will be speculation. Therefore, we need public statements. Now, can I turn to another prominent, or perhaps infamous, case involving Zahid Hamidi? As you know, he has been charged with breach of trust, corruption, and money laundering. The case has advanced; he was charged while you were in office. Yes, I was the one who charged him.

The case had moved along: 77 days of trial, 114 witnesses, and then suddenly the charges against him were withdrawn, as you know. The judge was obliged to give him a DNA test. You might remember it caused such an uproar; people were really furious. While the Attorney General refused to say anything, the Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, stated that the charges against him were, I quote, "questionable, not carried out professionally, and were politically motivated." The Prime Minister also mentioned that the charges were so flawed that it bothered the former Attorney General, Harun Idris, to the extent that he felt he had to dismiss them.

As one of the last things he did in office, it sounded like the Prime Minister was publicly rebuking you. And you never said anything. Actually, I can't remember him saying that, but I think what I would say is that the most important thing about the Zait case is that it involved taking money from charities. I believe there’s over 200 million, to the best of my memory.

Called how many witnesses we had, a terrific Deputy Public Prosecutor in-house, Raja Rozila. She was absolutely excellent. Yes, she was replaced later, much later. Most importantly, the defense was called. Now, one of the problems about criminal proceedings, as opposed to civil, is that a prosecutor must ensure that when they complete their case and close it, they are aware that the defense will always exercise their right to claim that the prosecution has not proven the case. This presents a tough challenge. We, or any prosecutor, will be concerned about that. The defense was called, and Raja Rozila continued, and the defense called any number of witnesses. I don't know how many witnesses they called. The process was moving slowly, and then one fine day, we read in the press that Raja Rozila had been replaced or had resigned—something like that. I can't remember much. She was replaced, and she refused to say anything about it.

Yes, that's correct. Now she's on the bench, and she was replaced by someone else. Therefore, to claim that there was no case is absolutely without legal or factual foundation, because a defense was called. In fact, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who was in charge of the case at that time is now the current Attorney General (AG).

Oh, I can't remember. Yeah, he's the current Attorney General, and he actually asked for a DNA analysis, although the judge ruled that there was a prima facie case against Zayt. So that is what was extremely surprising about the whole thing. If I remember correctly, one of the reasons that was mentioned was that they were going to set up a Regional Crime Initiative to look into your book and you and the whole situation. Whatever happened to that RCI?

Well, let me tell you, to the best of my memory, my book doesn't even mention prosecution. If it had, it may have been just a one-liner. As far as the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) is concerned, I am quite happy that today there is no RCI, but they had a special task force looking into it. Can I also mention that you asked for the Prime Minister's remark, which I'm not hearing? However, Dato' Sri Anwar Ibrahim, who is the Prime Minister, had his wife as the Deputy Prime Minister in the administration I served. His party was a very strong constituent party in that administration. He was very much in the public eye, Anwar Ibrahim. I met him a few times; we saw each other, you know. I'm surprised that if that was his view, he never came to me and said, "Look, Tommy, I've been talking to people, and maybe your case against Zaid Hamidi is not strong."

About the case or anything? Did anybody ever call you to ask for your views? No, absolutely not. So, the first comment I'll make is that he was a member; it was his administration. Now, four years later to say that, I'm a bit surprised.

One of the things that is, of course, happening right now is the $2.27 billion 1MDB case. The Tanuri. Yes, and the case that is ongoing at the moment. I was just reviewing some of the press reports, and the former prime minister suggested that he, like the current prime minister, had been punched, blindfolded, and handcuffed. Metaphorically, of course.

He also makes the allegation that he was robbed of the ability to defend himself properly and that he still remains clueless as to the actual charges against him. What do you make of these allegations? Do you think all this is just to lay the groundwork for yet another DNA issue that is coming down the pike? You're talking about the witness statement he's reading out in court right now. Yes, the one that he is reading out right now.

No, but you see, again, I would look at it this way: We always took the position that we had a very strong case in the prosecution. The reason we were confident was that we had a lot of contemporaneous documents and a paper trail, which we obtained through mutual legal assistance from other countries. Once you have the evidence, both with witnesses and documentary support, you know you're going to win the case. Proving it is painstaking and laborious, but you call witnesses and establish the facts. Conversely, the defense also knows they have a weak case because they are facing documentary evidence with signatures. When you have a weak case, you tend to rely on drama and other tactics. I am always pleased in the adversarial system when my opponent and the other party go off tangent like this, instead of sticking to the question: What are your defenses to our claim against you? One of the questions that Najib raised, which I think has created a lot of speculation, is why charges were not brought against the Bank Negara governor and their family, as Najib claims they were involved in the 1MDB scandal. I think that's a fair point.

Is that our resources were stretched at that time. I've already told you that we had five charges against Najib, all arising out of 1MDB, with SRC to some extent being indirectly involved. The other four charges were also related to 1MDB. We had charges against Zahid, Amelia, and a few others coming in. As far as 1MDB was concerned, my judgment call was to go after the main players. I charged, what do you call it, his father, but it couldn't go anywhere because they were not in the dock. We charged Goldman Sachs, Roger Ng, and Timothy Leissner, so all the big players were charged. Then, of course, because the trial was starting, my plan, had the government not fallen, would have been to go down to tier number two, which would include the directors of the companies and other people. That was the idea. But definitely, we started at the top because otherwise, it wouldn’t be fair; you cannot go after the small fish when the shark is at the top. So, am I correct in assuming that you didn’t rule it out? Of course not, absolutely not. The reason is that we gathered a lot of information about her husband in Singapore, and we succeeded in getting the money back. I think I can't remember if we made a press statement, but we had to go to the Singapore courts. The government of Malaysia appointed a lawyer in Singapore.

We went to the courts of Singapore, and the courts of Singapore gave permission for MAS, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, to send the funds. The interesting thing is that the funds were parked in Zeti's husband's name, and he didn't object. He accepted that it was Jolo's money. So, that is what happened during our time; it was a question of following up. I think the earlier questioning of the Bank Negara governor seemed to indicate that everything was cleared as far as this was concerned. In the latest trial, when Najib was reading out his witness statement, he seemed to imply that the Bank Negara governor gave a rapid approval for the foreign exchange transaction, which, to me, doesn't seem like an offense. It might be regulatory oversight at worst.

So, this was a Ministry of Finance company, wholly owned by them, and administered directly by the Minister of Finance, who was the Prime Minister at that time and had authorized this transaction to take place. So, how much choice did the Bank Negara governor have over these kinds of things? I don't know the facts, but what I would say is that you mustn't forget the choice the Bank Negara governor had over these kinds of issues. I don't know the facts, but you must also remember that the Governor of Bank Negara is, under the law, subject to the control of foreign exchange. And that's part of it.

So, I don't know enough of the facts of this case regarding the Tannoris to tell you. I know that the prosecution called her as a witness after Sridhar, I believe, had passed away. Therefore, I cannot comment on it. This was ostensibly for an investment in some kind of oil field overseas, which was described as a strategic investment.

But I see that this allows me to say something I was going to mention earlier but didn’t: people forget that all 1,500 individuals in the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) are lawyers; we are not investigators. When an alleged crime takes place, someone lodges a police report or a Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) report. The police or MACC, whichever enforcement agency is involved, conducts the investigation and then provides us with what you call the investigation papers (IPs). Only at that stage do the lawyers in the AGC come in. Unless we receive the IPs, we cannot proceed with any action. There has been a lot of criticism, particularly from UMNO, questioning why I only charged UMNO members, but the answer is simple: it wasn’t my decision. The cases that come to me originate from either the MACC or the police, and the AGC has no say in that process. They provide us with the files, and I often find myself wondering, "What about other cases?"

We have to do our job. The files that were given to us were determined by others. This means that if the investigating authority is prepared to ask you all to press charges, they must have seen the secret documents as well, right? Oh, of course, of course. Then it’s not their responsibility to obtain those secret documents, you know, so to be declassified. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. They have been seen but not classified.

Of course, we have photocopies; we know that. In preparing the case, while investigating—meaning MACC and the police—they have photocopies, and we, the lawyers, also have photocopies. So it's purely a procedure. However, in criminal cases, you have to produce the original document, and when it is under the Official Secrets Act (OSA), you have to obtain a declassification certificate. There will be a certificate classifying it and another certificate declassifying it, and you must produce both in court. Can I ask you about this? When you look back over the last two years in particular, it seems that some of the significant gains against corruption achieved by the first Pakatan Harapan administration under Dr. Mahathir—such as charging several high-profile individuals for corruption—are now being undermined and weakened by a Pakatan Harapan-led administration under a prime minister who came to office promising reform.

And now it seems that DNAs are flying around; some of those who were charged and faced all kinds of allegations are now in high office, and some of them are being turned into heroes. How disappointed are you? Well, I think I'm a little surprised at the parties because, if you look at the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government of Tun Dr. Mahathir that I served and the PH government of Anwar Ibrahim, the constituent parties are very similar. The DAP is common to both, and Amanah is common to both.

PKR is common to both. The only difference is UMNO. UMNO is common. Yes, that's correct. But UMNO has a small presence; there are only 25 seats in Parliament.

They're quite small, but I think DAP has about 40 seats. So even if UMNO is there, one gets the impression that the PH aspects of the coalition party are not exerting themselves. Many members of the current cabinet are members of the Dr. Mahathir cabinet. Whenever they saw me, they were very excited and said, "You're doing the right thing, charge!" But they are silent now.

I can't understand that, you know? So, that is disappointing. And then, of course, the other thing is regarding reform. I have always said that part of the process of reforming government is that I call myself a reforming agent in a reforming government, and part of it is law reform.

And I accepted that, unfortunately, in our 22 months, our track record wasn't impressive. We had accomplished the constitutional amendment to allow those under 18 to vote, which was done during our time. We also presented the bill to limit the Prime Minister's term to two terms; however, the subsequent government then withdrew it. We initiated discussions about the death penalty, but overall, our achievements were meager and disappointing. What is sad now is that in this phase, there is no talk of reform. You don't hear the term "reform" at all; it has been sent into oblivion.

But more worrying are the bills that they are presenting, like the Mufti Bill, and the bill about the Printing Presses Act, as well as the threat to regulate online content. I gather there was a demonstration, or I would say there was a handing over of a memorandum by some journalists yesterday. Do you find all these new legislations that are being proposed very concerning? Well, I think they are all unconstitutional. I believe so, but until a court decides, you know, that’s a separate issue. However, it’s certainly the antithesis of reform; not only are they not on the path to reform, but they are behaving in a manner that is the opposite of reform, and that is sad. Okay, I think our time is running out. Do you have any regrets about your time in office? Were there things you would have done differently or not done at all? No, I have no regrets.

I think the disappointing thing is that nobody expected the government to fall after 22 months. Do you think it would have been very different if Dr. Mahathir had not resigned and continued, and if you would continue with A.G.? Well, I think I can't answer what Tun Dr. Mahathir would have done. I think they had to have a handover because that was the promise between Tun and Dr. Mahathir, whether it was year three, year four, or whatever.

And I'm not going to comment on that. That's a political decision. But I think what I would say is that when I was offered the job by Tun and he said it's a two-year contract, I responded, "Tun, I have a lot of cases to handle, a lot of litigation, and you know how slow things are. How can it be two years?"

He said, "No, no, don't worry; it'll be extended and whatever." So I knew it would be at least for the four or five-year term, in which case you can see through the litigation. That is frustrating as a courtroom lawyer, as you start a case and IPIC disappears, Goldman Sachs disappears—many of these cases. It's a bit frustrating because you would have approached it differently. Each lawyer would say they would do it differently because, at the end of the day, a lot of law is art.

It's not science. Law is not science. Law is not black or white. Law is very much gray and nuanced. Therefore, you can contribute in different ways.

All right. Well, Tan Sri, thank you very much. It was a pleasure having you on Straight Talk. Thank you for having me. Thanks, Guda.

You're welcome. Thank you.