PETALING JAYA: Tan Sri Tommy Thomas spent about RM3.5mil of government funds to appoint external lawyers, including his former partner, on behalf of the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC), says the recently declassified Special Task Force Report on Thomas’ book.
It also stated that Thomas, who was then the AG, had allegedly sidelined the deputy public prosecutors who could have worked on those cases.
The report stated that all the external lawyers Thomas appointed in some cases incurred costs but ceased to act once he resigned as AG in February 2020.
The report further said although Thomas had the right to procure external lawyers for the AGC, the reason why external lawyers were needed was never really answered.
Throughout his tenure, he appointed 23 external lawyers.
“The amount spent on external lawyers during the tenure of Thomas as AG amounted to RM3,534,892.20,” said the report.
The claims were all approved by Thomas as the Controlling Officer.
“Although Thomas has complied with government regulations in the appointment of external lawyers, the question of the need to appoint external lawyers was never answered,” stated the report.
One such case was the appointment of his former partner to the Goldman Sachs case.
The report stated that Thomas appointed him to the Goldman Sachs case for his expertise, but the brief details surrounding the appointment and payment call for an investigation.
The Special Task Force is of the view that there appears to be a conflict of interest by Thomas in appointing his former partner to handle the Goldman Sachs assignments.
It then proposed that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission investigate the appointment of the lawyer as to whether there was a conflict of interest. Another case was the appointment of two external lawyers in the Suria Strategic Energy Resources Sdn Bhd (SSER) case.
The report said Thomas only mentioned that the appointments of the external lawyers in the SSER case was for the following reasons.
One was an international arbitration and disputes specialist, while the other was a commercial solicitor of vast experience and expertise.
In Malaysia’s legal challenge against the European Union’s discriminating regulations against Malaysian palm oil, the report alleged that Thomas acted in excess of his authority, sidelining the decisions made by civil servants at the Primary Industries Ministry.
“... Thomas decided to prepare for the EU case differently. Essentially, with little or no input from the ministry and their statutory bodies,” stated the report.
Thomas is alleged to have appointed five lawyers from the Malaysian Bar who apparently did not have any experience in dealing with either EU laws or undertaking any legal challenge to the World Trade Organisation or been involved in any consultation process under the EU.
In so doing, he is alleged to have dismissed or sidelined the firm of lawyers in Brussels appointed by the ministry.
He also defended his appointment of five local lawyers over the ministry’s foreign lawyers, claiming that “one is not convinced with their loyalty to the national cause”.
“All the external lawyers appointed by Thomas ceased to act for Malaysia once he resigned as AG and the fees incurred in hiring them have been a waste of public funds, especially as the work or opinions do not appear to be useful in the eventual submission of Malaysia’s case to the WTO,” stated the report.
When contacted, Thomas declined to comment on the declassified report
