A Srimurugan said an inquiry’s power would be based on terms and references set by the government and could only investigate by calling witnesses, leaving it to investigation agencies and the attorney-general to act upon its recommendations made to the King.

“It would have been a waste of time and public funds if police or the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission then had to do a follow-up investigation before the attorney general decides on prosecution,” he said.

The decision to charge former prime minister Najib Razak in court was a better option, he said.

Another lawyer, Syed Iskandar Syed Jaafar al-Mahdzar, said a 1MDB inquiry would be akin to holding a “meaningless inquest” and was unnecessary as there was substantial evidence available to prosecute those involved, and also based on civil proceedings initiated outside Malaysia to repatriate funds allegedly stolen from 1MDB.

Srimurugan pointed out that no one was prosecuted when an inquiry into a judge-fixing scandal about 20 years ago had implicated several people.

A report by another inquiry, into the Wang Kelian human trafficking camps and mass graves, was also not made public after a gruelling 17-day proceeding involving 48 witnesses.

“Inadmissible evidence can also be tendered in an RCI and this may be unfair to those implicated,” he said.

The lawyer was responding to a remark by Umno supreme council member Puad Zarkashi that PH had promised to institute a royal inquiry into the 1MDB scandal but failed to keep its pledge of doing so within 100 days of taking over power in May 2018.

Puad had accused DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang of being hypocritical for being selective in calling for an 1MDB inquiry but ignoring other serious allegations involving prominent leaders.

Najib is standing trial on 25 charges of abuse of power and money laundering over alleged 1MDB funds amounting to RM2.28 billion deposited into his bank accounts between February 2011 and December 2014.