COMMENT | The courtroom was and still is the ideal place for young reporters to hone their skills. It requires concentration and accuracy and most of the time, speed to take down what is said by witnesses.

It is not unusual for prosecuting officers to assist with some of the exchanges that had taken place during the proceedings.

In the 70s, it was usual for reporters covering the lower courts to get information on the charges proffered in big cases. Usually, one affable prosecuting officer, (the late) Syed Ahmad Syed Salleh, would show the charge sheet - which would then be copied in our notebooks.

One morning, we approached him and rather surprisingly, we were told off.

“I have a big case and don’t bother me. I am appearing before the Sessions Court president (as the presiding officers were known then before they were referred to as judges) Rahmah Hussein (who later went to rise up the ranks and retire as a Federal Court judge).

“I must be prepared to answer all questions as I do not want to be admonished for any slips in the prosecution’s case.”

Why resurrect an old encounter, you may ask? 

What transpired at the High Court in Ipoh on Monday rekindled memories of watching prosecutors, lawyers and even witnesses getting ticked off by the bench.

Police officers dreaded being reprimanded not only that the news will reach the ears of their bosses but will also be an impediment in their career paths.

But some background: Two weeks ago, the police and the Federal CID director, Abd Jalil Hassan got their two minutes of fame - in front of TV cameras and a posse of journalists.

Waving a “wanted” poster, he sought information on the whereabouts of the Sarawak Report editor Clare Rewcastle-Brown, although it was common knowledge that she was in London.

Under scrutiny

It’s a pity really that Abd Jalil has gone silent on what transpired in Ipoh.

Call it an admonishment, a rebuke or a reprimand, but the police force and in part, the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC), had egg splattered all over their faces.

The police came under scrutiny over their improper effort to investigate and arrest M Indira Gandhi’s ex-husband Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, and subsequently recover her youngest daughter Prasana Diksa.

Judicial Commissioner Bhupindar Singh, who presided over the judicial monitoring of the investigation, questioned the AGC, which represented the police, on the seriousness of the police in locating the fugitive.

Bhupindar asked Senior Federal Counsel Nur Idayu Amir why police have not been able to locate Riduan despite him having two cars registered under his name, in 2015 and 2017 in Malaysia, while the authorities had confirmed that he had left the country in 2014.

The proceedings, which have been reported extensively laid bare the inadequacies, the incompetence and the seriousness of the police in the course of discharging their duties and responsibilities.

So, would it come as a surprise if Malaysians discover down the road that the most wanted man, Low Taek Jho, or better known as Jho Low, had entered the country, met his associates and benefactor, disposed of his assets and disappeared?

Isn’t it elementary for the police to establish how and who was involved in the transaction of the sale and purchase of the cars? Surely, Riduan’s presence was required (as His Lordship pointed out) when the transfer of ownership was made at the Road Transport Department (RTD).

But then, will the negligence be deflected to the RTD? If so, then the question to ask is if Riduan’s name was flagged in the various government departments.

So many other shortcomings, inadequacies and failings emerged at the hearing and the capabilities – more the lack of it – were exposed to the bone.

The cars he bought were a Mercedes and a Nissan Frontier and they don’t come cheap, even on the second-hand market. What was his source of funds? The only checking that was done was with his previous employer. But if you are on the run, would you still be at the same place?

An amateur sleuth or a trainee investigative journalist would have done better, even without the vast powers of the police who can seize bank records, documents from government departments and even payments to private companies like telcos and satellite TV operators.

Over the past few months, the courts have ordered the return of monies running into millions seized from various parties purportedly from stolen 1MDB funds.

Among others, the authorities claimed that the RM114 million was part of a total of US$971 million (about RM2.9 billion) which former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak was said to have received from 1MDB between 2011 and 2013.

The High Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove that the money was obtained from illegal activities or that it had originated from 1MDB.

Aren’t these cases an indictment of the police and the AGC? Read with the cases withdrawn against three VIPs, many Malaysians will form their opinions.

But when will the police clean up their act and carry out investigations that are deemed acceptable to not only the judiciary but also the court of public opinion?

R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who writes on bread and butter issues. Comments: [email protected]

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.