MACC’s court application showed that the anti-graft agency’s raid on a law firm earlier this month was unlawful from the very beginning, contended one of the 17 partners of the firm.
In an affidavit filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court earlier today, Rosli Dahlan pointed out that the raid on Rosli Dahlan Saravana & Partnership (RDS) on Oct 6 violated Section 46 of the MACC Act 2009.
“In attempting to raid the firm on Oct 6, the applicant (MACC) was in violation of Section 46 of the MACC Act. This application made after that wrongful raid confirms the illegality of the raid.
“This application initiated by the applicant under Section 31(1) and 46 of MACC Act is ultra vires (exceeded the power granted to the authorities under law),” Rosli said in the affidavit sighted by Malaysiakini.
On Oct 6, MACC and officers from the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) attempted a search and seizure at two law firms, including RDS.
Following the incident, FMT reported that MACC had filed an application at the Kuala Lumpur High Court for a court order to compel the law firm to hand over several documents in the probe into a settlement entered between Goldman Sachs and the government on the 1MDB bond issue.
Earlier this month, Goldman Sachs hauled Malaysia before a United Kingdom (UK) arbitration court in relation to the settlement agreement linked to the bank’s role in the 1MDB affair.
Section 46 (1) of the MACC Act states that notwithstanding any other written law, a High Court judge may, on an application made in relation to an investigation into any offence under the Act, order a lawyer to disclose information available to him in respect of any dealing relating to properties liable to seizure under the Act.
However, subclause (2) of the same section states that nothing in the first subclause of the said section shall require a lawyer to comply with any said court order to the extent that such compliance would disclose any privileged information or communication which came to his knowledge for any pending proceedings.
Section 31 of the MACC Act deals with the power of search and seizure of the anti-graft agency.
According to Rosli's affidavit, the lawyer contended the MACC's entire court application is materially defective, irregular, malicious and driven by mala fide (bad faith).
He claimed this was because the court bid deliberately singled out his name as the first respondent out of two listed respondents (RDS is the second respondent).
‘No reason to name me as respondent’
"The applicant had deliberately singled out my name as the first respondent although, as will be seen later, none of the documents being sought are against me or personal to me.
"The privileged and confidential documents being sought are against the second respondent as a firm (RDS). I am one of 27 partners of the firm.
"There is no reason to name me as the first respondent except to create an impression to the public that I’m the principal target of the investigation and an accused person," Rosli said.
The lawyer noted that the MACC's court action is tainted by bad faith as it is sufficient to only name the law firm as a respondent in the court application, as the privileged and confidential documents are allegedly under the firm's possession.
Rosli claimed that the MACC court action was a form of political attack against him and RDS as they represented former prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin in multiple different court matters.
The lawyer said that following the 15th general election last year, the Anwar Ibrahim-led administration had been “churning controversies” by attacking the previous government headed by Muhyiddin, who is Bersatu president and PN chairperson.
“It is evident that the MACC had been enlisted to investigate and persecute the political opponents of PMX,” Rosli claimed in reference to the acronym for sitting prime minister Anwar.
“The fact is I am apolitical. I am neither a party member of Bersatu nor any other party,” the lawyer claimed.
He alleged that he acts in public interest cases when needed to achieve justice, pointing out that he had acted in the defence of former PKR parliamentarian Maria Chin Abdullah in a Syariah contempt case which has since gone to the civil court via judicial review.
Rosli claimed that MACC’s tendency to be utilised as an “instrument of oppression against political opponents and people perceived to be dissenters or unpopular with the government” can be seen 16 years ago when the agency arrested him on trumped-up claims of corruption.
On April 5, 2016, before the Kuala Lumpur High Court, the government and MACC expressed their regret to Rosli as part of the settlement of the lawyer’s lawsuit against them over what was known as the “Copgate” affair.
Rosli’s predicament came eight years earlier when he represented former Commercial Crime Investigation Department director Ramli Yusof and former deputy home minister Johari Baharom in the drafting of affidavits to challenge the habeas corpus application made by a crime kingpin who was caught by Ramli and his officers.
He filed the RM50 million suit in 2009 against MACC, its then chief commissioner Abu Kassim Mohamad, and 11 others including officers for unlawful arrest and detention.
It was reported then that Rosli was charged at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court with failure to abide by the MACC notice to declare his assets. The charge came a day before Muslims celebrated Hari Raya in 2007.
However, Rosli was acquitted of the charge and the prosecution’s appeal was withdrawn. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.