KUALA LUMPUR: A Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission officer was accused of possibly tampering with evidence when it was revealed today that he had produced two different versions of an investigation diary (ID).
At the Royal Commission of Inquiry investigating the death of Teoh Beng Hock, MACC assistant enforcement officer Arman Alies, 35, admitted that he had written two separate IDs detailing his interrogation of Teoh.
When asked to explain, Arman said that he lost parts of the first ID when he had provided it at MACC’s internal inquiry and he had produced a second one for his own personal keeping.
This prompted commissioner T Selventhiranathan to ask Arman: “But you could have made a photocopy? This is an important case, it is not everytime that a person you interview dies, so why were there two IDs?”
“Yes, it was my mistake,” admitted Arman.
Bar Council lawyer Edmund Bon pointed out many discrepancies and differences between the two IDs and applied to the commission to have its private investigator take down another statement from Arman on this matter.
“These are serious allegations that we are making here. The issue of the IDs may amount to offences under the Penal Code, including cheating, misrepresentation or forgery. The investigator can determine if there should be any action to be taken, if any, ” said Bon.
However, commission chairman James Foong said the decision on whether any crime had been committed or if a charge was necessary was not in the hands of the commission.
“That will be the duty of the Attorney-General. We will highlight this and send it to the AG,” he said.
MACC lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah objected to the application, saying that there was no need for a private investigator.
“Just because he had put in extra information in a second ID, it does not mean that he had produced false evidence,” he said.
Afraid of being slandered
Earlier, Bon pointed out that Arman’s second ID had additions such as “no violence was used” and the fact that Teoh had written on a diary-like book during interrogation.
Bon: You added so many things because you had a guilty conscience.
Arman: I disagree
Foong: Do you usually write such details, such as there was ‘no violence was used’?
Arman: Yes, but usually in a seizure case
Bon: But this is not a seizure case.
Arman: Yes, I added that, but there is nothing wrong. I included it to avoid from being slandered.
Arman testified that his first ID was written three days after July 15, 2009, when he had questioned Teoh. The second, he said, was written almost a year later, in August 2010.
He said that he did not have a softcopy of the first ID because his laptop was infected by virus and needed to be reformatted.
Arman said he produced the second ID in more detail because he was afraid he might forget to which Bon asked how he could remember more details a year later compared to a few days after the investigation.
Bon again pointed out that Arman, like his colleageue Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus, did not have the authority to question Teoh.
Bon also asked why it took Arman three days to type out the ID.
Bon: You told us earlier that you are required to type out your ID as quickly as possible.
Arman: If I have the time, somtimes on the same day, it depends.
Bon: In this case, when did you type it?
Arman: Not on the same date, it was after police recorded my statement, maybe on July 18 or 19.
Bon: This case was important right? You know it involved the death of Teoh, but you took a several days to type this out. What happened then to the original ID?
Arman: I kept it until it was asked from me.
Names scribbled on cigarrette packet
Meanwhile, Bar Council’s Christopher Leong also made an application to ask a private investigator to collect all documents relevant to MACC’s investigation of Seri Kembangan assemblyman and Teoh’s former boss Ean Yong Hian Wah.
Leong also asked that the handphones and laptops as well as the IDs of other officers involved in the case be seized as well.
Earlier, Arman also told the commission that all investigation notes or diaries were not taken down on any paper, and were all typed out in a computer.
When the commissioners asked how he could remember all the names and numbers of people he met, Arman said sometimes he would type it in his phone or sometimes even scribble it on a cigarrette packet with a key.
Earlier, Shafee also applied to the commission to bar the media from taking photographs of Arman’s face as he said the officer was currently on an undercover mission.
Shafee said that what everybody was looking at was not Arman’s “normal face”.
“Let him maintain his cammouflage then, but I don’t think we can do anything right now as his face has already been plastered all over the papers. His so-called cover has already been blown,” said Foong.
Items seized from witness
Later in the afternoon, in relation to Leong’s application, Foong ruled that Arman’s computer, laptop will be seized with immediate effect.
Arman was also ordered to give up his mobile phone number and service provider so that the inquiry could examine his calls and messages.
“As for the need to impound the equipment of any other officers, we shall so order only as and when the need arises,” said Foong.
Shafee then applied for the commission to consider checking the phones of several other individuals.
“It has occurred to me that there are other witnesses whose mobile phones may prove relevant here. They are Ean Yong, Tan Boon Wah, and a contractor named Harun,” said Shafee.
He also suggested that the phones of lawyers M Manoharan and Gobind Singh Deo be checked but did say that the commission should be mindful of client-lawyer confidentiality.
Later, Arman also told the commission he thought a fellow MACC officer was joking when he received a call on July 16 about Teoh’s death.
Arman: I did not believe it. I thought at first they maybe joking.
Selventhiranathan: Witness dies, a joke?
Arman: Well because in all the time I’ve worked in MACC, this never happened. I did not take it seriously at first, but later, I was concerned.
Selventhiranathan: What was your action when you were concerned?
Arman: I was shocked. I did not do anything.
Selventhiranathan: As an experienced officer, did it not occur to you that this would be a big case and he died while in the custody of the MACC, and why did you type out the investigation diary three days later?
Arman: I did not do it earlier because I had other work to do.
Selventhiranathan: Why?
Arman: Because I did not do anything wrong, so I had no reason to be afraid.
When questioned by Shafee, Arman said Teoh’s demeanor was “normal and healthy” and there was nothing suspicious about his condition.
He added that Teoh did not look stressed nor did he look as if he had been abused before this.
Shafee: Did you do anything else to TBH, other than what you’ve told us?
Arman: No
Shafee: Given the time taken to do all that you’ve told us. Was there any chance for you to do anything else other than what you’ve told us?
Arman: No
The inquiry continues tomorrow with Hairul Ilham Hamzah scheduled to take the stand.
Teoh, the political aide of Selangor executive councillor Ean Yong of DAP, was found dead on July 16, 2009, on the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam.
He had been interrogated the night before by MACC officers at their office, located on the 14th floor of the same building.
The MACC was investigating the alleged misuse of Selangor government allocations.
On Jan 5, coroner Azmil Muntapha Abas returned an open verdict in the inquest into Teoh’s death, ruling out both suicide and homicide. Subsequently, the government caved in to public pressure and established the commission now sitting.
It is investigating both the cause of Teoh’s death and MACC’s interrogation methods. The inquiry is scheduled to end on April 25. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.