Court documents recorded questions as to why Malaysian authorities did not accept or offer MLA to the Swiss AG or the US Justice Department, despite those agencies actively investigating 1MDB-linked transactions. International investigators encountered resistance, not cooperation.

These are documented decisions and judicially recorded observations, not speculation. Decisions matter, especially when made by an AG.

This was more dangerous than acquittal, because justice was not defeated in court. Justice was neutralised before it reached the court.

An acquittal can be scrutinised, appealed, criticised, but a prosecution never brought leaves no judgment, no reasoning, no institutional memory.

This is why the Court of Appeal later observed that Apandi’s conduct created the impression that the 1MDB scandal had been covered up.

Impression matters, because justice depends on public trust, and once public trust in justice is damaged, the entire system weakens. Najib’s conviction closes one chapter, but it exposes another.

Silence is not neutrality

In 2022, a police report was lodged concerning Apandi’s role during his tenure as AG, and investigations were publicly acknowledged.

Since then, there has been no public accounting, no conclusion and no explanation.

Silence is not neutrality. Silence is a decision. Decisions made without explanation are exactly how institutions decay.

In the post-Najib era of the country, Malaysians were promised reform after 2018. This meant independence of institutions, the separation of powers and no more political shielding.

The political shielding operated as a buffer between power and accountability and effectively insulated decision-makers from ordinary processes of accountability.

Today, the most important test of reform is not whether we punish villains, but whether we confront the enablers.

So, if no explanation is required for shutting down investigations, no accountability follows institutional inaction and no lessons are publicly articulated, then the system has not learnt any lesson.

In other words, without accountability and transparency, institutions have failed to learn anything from past inaction.

Loyalty safer than law

The message to the rakyat is simple: Loyalty is safer than law. Delay outlasts outrage. Time protects those who do nothing.

This is precisely what citizens observe in Malaysia today, across successive administrations, whenever a major scandal erupts: 1MDB, the Scorpene procurement saga, Altantuya Shaariibuu’s murder, the littoral combat ships navy scandal, the disappearance of Pastor Raymond Koh, and the unresolved case of M Indira Gandhi’s daughter.

In each, loyalty appears safer than law, delay outlasts outrage, and time protects those who do nothing.

Apandi matters now, but he is not unique. He is repeatable.

If Malaysia does not explain what went wrong, and not just who was wrong, then the next AG inherits the same dangerous ambiguity. Unchecked discretion. Opaque decisions. No consequences.

More importantly, that is not reform, but it is a relapse.

So, while Najib’s conviction tells us who benefited, it is Apandi’s silence which forces us to ask who enabled.

Until Malaysia answers with honesty, accountability remains incomplete.

If Najib is guilty, what about those who stopped the system from working?