Differentiating Person of Interest from A Suspect and A Witness

Many have been asking me for my view about James Chai's case. I am not an expert of law, but based on my reading, I will just share my thoughts here with you.

Be it the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) or the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) conducting an investigation, people are called in to provide a statement. There are three categories -- Person of Interest, A Witness and a Suspect.

In the case of James Chai, who is abroad in the United Kingdom, he is a person of interest in the RM1.1 billion contract approved hastily before former Economy Minister Rafizi Ramli stepped down. Technically, there is nothing to worry about for Chai, as he is not a suspecct. 

The Malaysian Anti‑Corruption Commission (MACC) is well within its powers to call him in to ascertain the facts surrounding the alleged “rumours” that Rafizi Ramli had hastily approved a RM1.1 billion contract before he left office. When there are allegations that it was approved hastily, after someone has lodged a report, the MACC is duty bound to investigate, which may not necessarily lead to prosecution. For that reason, Rafizi Ramli's idea of suing the government is a bit too presumptious. 

As a matter of standard investigative procedure, enforcement agencies routinely record statements from relevant parties at the preliminary stage to understand the background and context of a case. And when a person of interest like James Chai appears to evade them, then, they will publish both name and photograph to look for them. At this stage, Chai should not fear unlike in the case of Zambri Vinoth, who even had the audacity to meet the Inspector-General of Police, as if he were someone important. The IGP is a gentleman, if it had been someone else, Zambri Vinoth could have been told to meet the IGP's men at the nearest police station, because they are in fact, pursuing him as a suspect. Whether Zambri committed sedition or not, it will be decided not by the police but the court; therefore, Zambri will given a chance to defend himself. 

Being called to make an official statement either by the MACC or PDRM, is therefore, just part of the due process. By way of analogy, even a person who is merely a victim of physical threats would first be called by the police to give a statement. Such a statement, while not sworn and attested by a Commissioner of Oath, is nevertheless an official statement recorded under statutory authority and may later be relied upon or tendered in court, if necessary. 

Chai should therefore appreciate that the MACC’s intention in calling him is to establish the factual background of the matter before proceeding to interview the principal figure involved, namely Rafizi Ramli. This is neither unusual nor improper, but a routine and necessary step in any investigation.

Issuing a press statement would not be sufficient -- in fact, it can be seen as making a mockery of the investigating authority, showing that Chai was unwilling to cooperate with the due process; instead, attempting to create the perception that the MACC was being used as a political tool to go after people like him. If the MACC chooses to, Chai can even be prosecuted for criminal defamation. Chai should just take it that the MACC is merely seeking to get to the bottom of the case as part of the due process, and this is his opportunity to state what he had mentioned in his press statement, except that now, the investigation requires a signed statement that can eventually be used in court, if needed. 

Therefore, Chai should not continue to be evasive and enhance public perception which a third party is trying to create that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was using the MACC as his political tool. The wiser thing for Chai to do is to turn up at the MACC Headquarters to come clean about the case itself -- to tell the real story, if he wants to get out of the net. If he continues to be evasive, he, from being a person of interest for now can be categorised as a witness or worse, as a suspect; therefore, in my opinion, it would be advisable for James Chai to make himself available as soon as possible to speak to the investigation officer. 

In the case of Albert Tei, it was obvious from his own confession, that he was the one who was attempting to bribe the Sabah politiicans; they are let off the hook because for some reason, they never approved the project. To secure conviction in court, the judge would require the prosecutor to prove that the defendant had obtained personal gratification in exchange for a favour done; otherwise, the case will be dismissed. 

I, for one, can understand that Chai, as claimed in his press statement, was just doing his job conscientiously in the final hours of his stint with the Ministry of Economy; therefore, if there is no evidence that he had accepted some form of gratification, whether in cash or kind, he will be let off, only that he has to give an official statement for now. The difference between him and Anwar's political secretary is that there appeared to be some forms of gratification, although Shamsul Akin had only issued a letter not even instructing any individual to give the contract to a friend, which would expose him to being a party with vested interest). His letter of recommendation, which I am aware, is in fact, not consistent with the current administration's policy (PMX had ealier warned that he would not defend even his party member if found to be corrupt); Shamsul's only line of defence is that he merely gave a list of suggestions, not necessarily favouring his 'friend.' He may be acquitted by the court, which is very likely so, because Shamsul's letter merely gave a list of recommended companies. 

Having said all this, James Chai should not confuse himself with Albert Tei or Shamsul's case, where they were suspects; therefore, they were arrested an charged in court. In his case, being merely a person of interest for now, unless he is also a suspect, Chai should understand that when the authoritiies open an investigation paper, eveything must be done properly so that it can be tendered in court. Perhaps, only become a witness if the case were to even proceed, meaning the MACC has reasons to believe that Rafizi did it with vested interest in mind. It is ultimately the court to decide based on the arguments from both sides. 

However, given that Rafizi was a minister, he faces a bigger risk of being charged for corruption for abusing his office to influence police investigations. Corruption: In 1999, he was sentenced to six years for "