The President of the Court of Final Appeal, Justice Sam Hou Fai, yesterday criticised former Prosecutor-general Ho Chio Meng’s repetitions of the same denial over his bribery charges, complaining his intention was to drag his feet.
“I never appointed any of my subordinates to enter contracts with any specific companies,” repeated Mr. Ho following every charge read by the judges during the first half of yesterday’s hearing. The ex-official also repeatedly emphasised that his signatures on the public contracts in question were due to his responsibilities as Prosecutor-general.
However, following his repetitions, the top court President, the presiding judge in the case, declared that the defendant could only make one statement for a group of charges under one category from then on, considering the time needed for both prosecutors and defendants to provide proof and evidence in later sessions, as well as the summoning of over 100 witnesses.
The ex-Prosecutor general expressed his disagreement with the word ‘stalling’ used by the top court judge. He argued it was necessary for the court to hear the charges one by one due to the differences between the contracts. But he added that he respected the decision made by the court.
The decision also led to an early halt of the trial yesterday afternoon in order to give adequate time for the ex-official to prepare a statement for each group of charges.
Of those contracts in question in the morning, most were related to the purchase of computer software, computing facilities maintenance for the Prosecutor’s Offices, with the total contracted amount valued at MOP3.8 million (US$474,400) while Mr. Ho is suspected of obtaining MOP638,803.
During fellow judge Song Man Lei’s reading of his accusations, the ex-official pointed out that suspect companies stating clear quotations of products and services to the Prosecutor’s Office should not be considered as shell companies, as they should have provided the requested products and services in order to be able to list the prices.
Reasonable works
for government residence
Meanwhile, the afternoon session of the trial primarily heard charges related to the contracts of maintenance, refurbishment and installment for the Prosecutor’s Office as well as Ho’s government residence.
The former Prosecutor-general revealed his acknowledgement of the contracts related to the refurbishment and maintenance of the government residence on Penha Hill, admitting he had signed those contracts without detailed examination.
Seven companies awarded maintenance contracts are suspected of being shell companies under Ho’s control.
According to the accusation, the contracts granted to these seven companies were worth around MOP22 million, from which the former top prosecutor is suspected to have obtained MOP5 million.
On the other hand, the defendant remarked that it was normal and reasonable for the Office to appoint one regular company for the works, presenting a previous government reply to one legislative enquiry indicating assigning one regular company for public contracts could ensure security and privacy.
He affirmed that maintenance works at his government residence were definitely well performed and completed during his residence there for over 15 years, claiming those projects were not via shell companies.
Following Ho’s statement, Justice Sam questioned if Ho was aware of those companies.
In response, the ex-official denied knowledge of those companies, saying he would approach Wong Kuok Wai – one of the prosecuted suspects – if anything needed to be fixed.
He emphasised that he was not aware of Wong’s participation in any shell companies.
For certain contracts worth less than MOP1,000, Mr. Ho claimed he doubted whether anyone would bother to defraud the government for just a few hundred patacas.
No public tenders
According to the accusation, a total of 252 contracts for maintenance and refurbishment works were granted by the former Prosecutor-general, of which 145 were directly contracted without enquiry.
The top court president questioned the absence of quotations, to which Ho answered he knew nothing about the matter.
Meanwhile, Mr. Ho requested the court categorise the contracts by types of project rather than the current chronological order. But the presiding judge rejected this request, stating that it was of no use since Ho claimed to have no knowledge of any of the contracts made.
