KUALA LUMPUR – Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki has stressed that arrests do not automatically result in prosecutions, amid criticism that the agency prioritises arrests without ensuring cases are brought to court.
Responding to such claims, Azam said the criticism oversimplifies the complexity of corruption investigations and reflects a misunderstanding of how responsibilities are divided within the criminal justice system.
Referring to a recent case involving an officer from the Malaysian Armed Forces (ATM), he said media attention had largely centred on financial transactions, but stressed that money trails alone are insufficient to prove corruption.
Investigations, he explained, must establish whether corruption actually occurred, whose account the money was paid into, who made the payment, and how the transactions were directly linked to the project in question.
“These are among the biggest challenges faced by investigators,” he said.
Azam added that public debate on the issue is often driven by comparisons between arrest and prosecution statistics, which can be misleading.
“This is the danger of playing with statistics. Some say if we arrest 100 people, then all 100 must be charged,” he said in an interview with NST.
“What needs to be understood is the nature of our investigations and the standard of proof required,” he added.
While acknowledging public frustration over the perceived lack of prosecutions, Azam stressed that the decision to bring charges does not rest with the MACC.
“I do not blame the public. That is the perception,” he said. “But the decision to prosecute lies with the Attorney-General, the prosecution authority and relevant ministries, based on the outcome of our investigations.”
Azam also addressed ongoing debate over separating the roles of the Attorney-General and the Public Prosecutor, a proposal linked to concerns over prosecutorial independence.
He said discussions on the matter typically focus on three issues: clarity of roles, independence and perceptions of interference, noting that some believe the attorney-general interferes in all prosecutorial decisions.
Under existing law, however, prosecutorial authority rests with the public prosecutor, not explicitly with the attorney-general.
“There is no impact on MACC. Whoever holds the role of public prosecutor, we will refer our cases there. Our job is to investigate,” he said. – January 11, 2026