COMMENT The South African Institute for
Race Relations report says there are 42,000 people over the age of 100
and some over 120 years old in the voters roll of Zimbabwe.
This is a country with a life expectancy of 43 years.
But
still Tobaiwa Mudede, the equivalent of Malaysia's Election Commission
(EC) chairperson, claims that no fraud had ever been practiced in
preparing Zimbabwe's electoral roll.
In comparision, at the Sabah RCI on illegal immigrants, a former NRD officer
Mohd Nasir Sugip, revealed in ‘Ops Durian Buruk' that he and others
processed some 40,000 application forms for blue identity cards which
signify Malaysian citizenship.
These were meant to be distributed to immigrants in Sabah, believed to be in exchange for votes.
They were based in the house of Abdul Aziz Shamsuddin, the then-political secretary to then premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad (
right).
Yet, our EC chairperson, in April 2012, claimed that "no other country in the world has a cleaner electoral roll than ours".
The
most prevalent issues in Zimbabwe's electoral roll are the issuance of
instant or faked personal identification papers and fictitious
addresses.
We are facing exactly the same problem.
Similar game plan
Mudede is believed to have started his shenanigans sometime in 1980.
From
the revelations made during the Sabah RCI we can say that the game here
started about the same time or slightly earlier and came to its peak in
the 1990s during Ops Durian Buruk.
I do not know if it was our
EC which copied Mudede's methods or the other way round, or both
coincidentally shared the same ideas.
However if the Zimbabweans
could still get together to challenge Mudede's roll in spite of them
having to face more dangerous and threatening circumstances than what we
face, we should be able to do better if we all challenge the EC's roll
together.
I last week suggested that the Selangor state government take up the task by challenging the
gazette instead of challenging the roll head-on.
Silence of the IGPI
am really puzzled as to how the inspector-general of police (IGP) has
been able to remain silent without stating his position since the start
of the Sabah RCI more than two weeks ago.
The issue has escalated into a personal vendetta between Mahathir and opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim since two days ago.
Although Mahathir and Anwar (
left)
have both declared their willingness to testify before the RCI if
called, it must be made clear that their testimonies will not bring any
changes to the already tainted electoral roll.
The IGP and
attorney-general Gani Patail, in particular, must be bold and frank
enough to explain to citizens that evidence given by witnesses in a RCI,
is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceedings whatsoever
against the person who gave the evidence, except when the person is
charged with giving false evidence. That's all. (Section 11 RCI Act
1950.)
The RCI chairperson is not like a judge who is empowered to
pronounce a verdict whether a person is guilty of an offence or not.
Nor can the chairperson decide to institute, conduct or discontinue a criminal proceedings like an AG can.
Citizens
at the moment seem to have high expectations that action will be taken
against those perpetrators or masterminds once the RCI concludes its
enquiry.
The citizens must be told of the RCI's actual mechanism.
They should not continuously be deceived nor given false hopes like
what Gani Patail (
right) did a couple of days ago, saying that
he will do something when the RCI is concluded, especially so since
Sabah is his home state.
Gani should inform the rakyat that even
he as the AG cannot charge a person with any criminal offence based
solely on a RCI report.
He has to rely on an investigation paper
put up by a proper investigative body such as the police or the MACC
depending on the nature and classification of the crimes committed and
the laws applied.
Both Gani and I have gone through this process before in the 1998
‘black-eye' incident involving Anwar and then-IGP Rahim Noor (
left).
Even
though the former IGP's admission was recorded during the RCI
established to investigate that incident, the AG had to rely on my
investigation papers and what I had recommended when charging Rahim
Noor.
It was not based on the RCI final report or its recommendations.
That's
the reason why I am harping on the IGP to commence investigations right
away and not wait for the completion of the Sabah RCI before deciding
on his next course of action.
I am making this suggestion based on my experiences and the laws and not at my whim and fancy.
Dr M and Anwar can volunteer
As
for Mahathir and Anwar, who are in some ways implicated in the Projek
IC, both of them are entitled to be represented by their own advocates
at the inquiry after getting leave from the commissioners. Both Mahathir
and Anwar do not have to wait to be called. They can take their own
initiatives to appear before the RCI. This is provided for under Section
18 of the RCI Act 1950.
I am sure both of them are familiar with
this rule, especially since both had been involved in some way in the
black eye incident RCI.
There's no need for either of them to
declare their willingness to testify at the Sabah RCI only through the
press. If they are sincere and have nothing to hide, or if they are not
involved at all, then they should put in their bid to be represented at
the RCI at the next hearing date.
They can also apply to have
their testimonies given through a statutory declaration. That method is
easier. There are many ways to do it, if they really want it done.
MAT ZAIN IBRAHIM is former chief of the Kuala Lumpur Criminal Investigation Department.