News From Multiple Perspectives

MACC officer denies bias in Lim Guan Eng tunnel probe

Published August 3, 2026 at 11:31 PM UTC

Authored by
Every article published on DirectionFreeNews undergoes editorial review by our editorial team. Our editors research publicly available information from multiple trusted news organizations, compare differing perspectives, verify key facts, and publish balanced summaries intended to help readers better understand important events. Our editorial process is designed to reduce editorial bias by considering multiple reputable sources rather than relying on a single viewpoint

A Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigating officer has formally rejected claims that his probe into the RM6.3 billion Penang undersea tunnel project was biased. Senior Superintendent Zulhilmi Ramli, testifying in the ongoing corruption trial of former Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, maintained the integrity of his investigation during cross-examination by the defense. The defense had suggested that the commission’s work was intentionally structured to incriminate the former chief minister rather than conduct a neutral inquiry.

During the proceedings, defense lawyer Mohd Haijan Omar questioned why investigators failed to verify whether the project developer, Consortium Zenith Beijing Urban Construction Group, had submitted specific claims for the feasibility study and detailed design. Zulhilmi explained that these documents had not been submitted to the state government because the project was still in its early stages. He confirmed that he had reviewed the relevant documents and disagreed with the assertion that his team relied solely on the testimony of a single prosecution witness.

Lim Guan Eng faces multiple charges, including abuse of power and the improper disposal of state land, linked to the massive infrastructure project. The trial has frequently focused on the methodology used by the MACC to build its case, with the defense repeatedly challenging the thoroughness of the investigation. Zulhilmi, who took over the investigation in 2020, stated that he reviewed earlier investigation papers and sought further clarification to build a comprehensive case.

The trial, which has been ongoing for several years, continues to examine the complexities of the project’s approval process and the alleged financial irregularities. As the court proceedings move forward, the focus remains on whether the prosecution can substantiate its claims of corruption and abuse of power. The case is expected to resume on August 7, with further testimony anticipated from key figures involved in the project’s development.