Andrew Loh is inaccurate. There were no original 35 counts of corruption. There were only 2 counts of corruption. The AGC cited
"risk of litigation" in respect of the 2 counts of corruption, i.e. the AGC wasn't confident it would secure a conviction for the 2 counts of corruption.
To prove that the accused accepted the bribe with corrupt intent, invariably
you need the person who bribed (OBS) to testify against the person being bribed (ISW). Remember Cecilia was the prosecution witness in the case of NBG and in exchange Cecilia was NOT charged. However, in this case the AGC proceeded with the trial of ISW even though (OBS) wasn't prepared to be the prosecution witness. In fact OBS was charged
only after the trial of ISW. In my opinion, the AGC should have proceeded against OBS first, secured a conviction, and used the conviction of OBS as evidence against ISW, if OBS was not prepared to testify against ISW.
Yes, there was a risk of litigation but it was created by the AGC itself by putting the cart before the horse.