The MACC has refuted allegations that it broke the law by interrogating the son of former finance minister Daim Zainuddin for several hours in the absence of legal representation.
“MACC wishes to stress that it carries out its functions and duties within the framework of the Federal Constitution and is committed to respecting the legal rights of the individuals involved in cases which are being investigated.
“We do not arbitrarily deny the right of legal representation and always follow the law in our investigation process,” said the commission in a statement this evening.
Earlier today, Wira Dani Abdul Daim’s lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan claimed his client was denied the right to legal representation despite repeated requests to the MACC officers present.
He alleged that his client was also threatened with immediate arrest if he insisted on it.
Denying the right to legal representation is a breach of Article 5(3) of the Constitution, he said.
Citing legal precedent, however, the MACC countered that the guarantees under Article 5(3) are not absolute and are subject to certain limits and exceptions.
“In this case, the MACC investigating officer believes the presence of Wira Dani’s lawyer could jeopardise the investigation,” it said.
Hence, it said suspending Wira Dani’s right to legal representation was in line with a 2017 court ruling that Article 5(3) does not guarantee that a lawyer must be present during questioning.
“Moreover, the court found there is no legal or constitutional basis for a lawyer to be present when a statement is being recorded because the MACC Act 2009 does not contain a provision for that right,” said the MACC.
It also cited another court ruling affirming that the right to seek legal representation can be temporarily suspended if it affects investigations.
Justifying ‘oppressive acts’
Last year, Lawyers for Liberty director Zaid Malek accused the MACC of misleading the public on the two court rulings when the graft buster made similar arguments to bar lawyers from being present during questioning.
He said the 2017 court statement regarding the right of counsel of witnesses under Article 5 was mere obiter dictum, an opinion that is not legally binding.
As for the other court ruling, Zaid argued the case quoted was irrelevant as it pertained to the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 and other laws that restrict access to legal counsel.
“Like the devil quoting the scripture, MACC is quoting things out of context to justify their oppressive acts,” he said. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.