Fortunately for the British public the Freedom of Information Act has not yet been repealed by politicians anxious to conceal the truth and to cover up the commission of crime.

Thus an UK national daily has been able to extract from the UK Government an admission that the UK High Commission in Malaysia had queried the self-serving protestations of innocence mouthed by arch criminal Prime Minister Najib and given a semblance of validity by his creature the “Attorney General” Apandi

Diplomatic missions abroad have a duty to report factual information to their parent Ministry and it is apparent that what happened in Malaysia was that the UK High Commission did just that. Diplomatic missions have their own tested sources of information and also usually provide a fig leaf for the activities of their national intelligence services.

Having regard to these facts it is evident that the Kuala Lumpur based British High Commission reported that what Najib was claiming was entirely untrue and that he had, in fact, stolen billions. It is their job to report facts and they appear to have done so. It is the responsibility of their parent government, in this case the London government, to decide on what action to take in such circumstances.

Unfortunately such action is rarely guided by moral or indeed legal considerations. For a very long time UK business interests have operated on a massive scale in Malaysia both before and since Independence. And British political parties depend heavily on financial support from deep pockets; such as those of the business community. So it should not be a surprise if reports of Najib’s criminal activity, even when emanating from arms of the government itself, were studiously ignored.

To ignore rumour is one thing To suppress official records of criminal activity in other countries is another thing but to continue to do that in the face of proof offered by the US government that Najib is a mega thief who has stolen billions from his own people is quite another. Doing that makes those responsible accessories after the fact to crimes and it is difficult to believe that a British government would act illegally in this way; never mind how much business interest there might be in the country concerned.

That said, however, it is a fact that a company that benefited to the tune of some 300 million dollars stolen from the Malaysian fund 1MDB, and which claims, falsely, to have repaid that money “plus interest” is still operating in London with complete immunity. Does “big business” have that much of a hold on the British government? It is for that government to say and say now.