KUALA LUMPUR – Political economist Terence Gomez has demanded to know why he was not informed about a purported decision reached by the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board (LPPR) on the alleged impropriety of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner, if indeed the board had met and discussed the matter on November 24 last year.
Gomez, who resigned as a member of MACC’s consultative and corruption prevention panel over the alleged conflict of interest, called on the board members to confirm if the meeting, in which Tan Sri Azam Baki was supposedly exonerated took place, as claimed by LPPR chairman Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang.
Abu Zahar had claimed at a press conference on January 5 that the board was satisfied with the explanation given by Azam on the issue of his procurement of shares.
However, in a joint statement yesterday, six members of the board denied having expressed such an opinion, saying that Abu Zahar’s comments were his own “personal view”.
“We categorically wish to state that the board members at that meeting or at any time thereafter did not express such an opinion as Abu Zahar attributed to,” they said.
In a statement last night, Gomez called on the members who distanced themselves from Abu Zahar’s assertion to go further and confirm one further issue.
“Did the advisory board meet on 24 November 2021, as claimed by Abu Zahar, to discuss the allegations about the business interests of MACC chief Azam Baki?” he said.
“I raise this question for this reason: if a meeting was held on 24 November, why was I not told of this when I discussed this matter with some board members in December? Why was I not told that Azam had been exonerated by the board members at this meeting?
He added that if the meeting was held on that date, another question must be answered.
“The board members have confirmed that they do not have the authority to exonerate Azam of the allegations made against him. If they state this now, why then did they exonerate Azam at the meeting on 24 November?” he said.
Gomez stressed that it is not sufficient for the board to distance themselves from Abu Zahar’s statements.
He said they must also explain why they did not insist on an independent investigation into these allegations against Azam when this was first brought to their attention.
At the press conference on January 5, Azam had said that his brother, Nasir Baki, used his share-trading account to purchase shares in a private company in 2015, but maintained that he had no vested interest or benefit.
He went on to explain that all the shares were eventually moved to Nasir’s account and insisted that he saw no issue with allowing his brother to initially use his. – The Vibes, January 9, 2022
.jpeg)
