I refer to the recent public statements by former Auditor-General Tan Sri Dr Madinah Mohamad concerning the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) into Lembaga Tabung Haji.
With respect, the fact that a person was subpoenaed and attended the proceedings does not create an automatic right to testify. An RCI is entitled to assess the evidence already available and determine which witnesses are necessary to fulfil its terms of reference. It is not obliged to call every potential witness merely because that person wishes to defend a previous decision.
The RCI had access to extensive documents, financial records and evidence from persons directly involved in the relevant accounting and decision making processes. If the Commission considered that Madinah’s testimony would not materially assist its inquiry, it was within its discretion not to call her.
It is also relevant that Madinah’s publicly reported academic qualifications are in political science and human resource management not professional accounting or auditing. Although she held the constitutional office of Auditor-General, the technical audit work was undertaken by the qualified officers serving under her. Accordingly, the Commission was entitled to give greater weight to contemporaneous documents and evidence from witnesses possessing direct technical knowledge.
Madinah now says that the RCI’s findings might have been different had she testified. That remains speculation. The proper measure of an inquiry is the evidence before it, not a former office-holder’s retrospective assertion about what she might have said.
More importantly, the public should not be diverted from the RCI’s substantive findings concerning Tabung Haji’s financial position, the declaration of dividends and the safeguarding of depositors’ funds. These are matters involving the savings and trust of millions of Muslims. They deserve accountability, not political distraction.
The distinction between a routine audit and a forensic investigation may explain why different matters were uncovered. It does not, however, answer whether sufficient firmness was exercised when serious financial warning signs arose. Nor does it invalidate the RCI’s conclusions.
The RCI was established to conduct an independent and comprehensive investigation. Its findings should be considered on their merits and followed by proper investigation and, where supported by evidence, appropriate enforcement action.
Public confidence in Tabung Haji will not be restored by attacking the RCI merely because its conclusions are uncomfortable. It will be restored through transparency, accountability and decisive protection of depositors’ interests.
