1MDB audit report must be submitted to Parliament, argues lawyer

The auditor-general is constitutionally bound to submit to Parliament all reports on government-owned entities that it has audited - including 1MDB – and not just classify it as an official state secret, said lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdullah.

Haniff, who was appearing for former Umno member Zahid Md Arip, told the High Court in Kuala Lumpur today that Article 107(1) of the Federal Constitution makes it a requirement for audit reports to be submitted to Parliament.

Zahid, who is now a member of Bersatu’s supreme council, had filed a judicial review application to challenge the auditor-general’s classification of the 1MDB audit report under the Official Secrets Act 1972.

Under the Audit Act 29157, Haniff (photo) pointed out, companies in which the government is the majority shareholder, or those that are 100 percent owned by the government must be audited by the auditor-general.

He added this encompasses the audit report on 1MDB, which was requested by the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

“Can anyone show me under which 183 plus articles in the constitution which exclude the requirement under Article 107(1)?” Haniff asked senior federal counsel Suzana Atan, who appeared for the auditor-general, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and the government.

Besides Zahid’s challenge, Selangor Menteri Besar Azmin Ali (photo) had also filed a separate judicial review application in an attempt to have the 1MDB audit report declassified.

But like the MB, Zahid was also told by the federal counsel that he had no locus standi to ask for declassification of the report.

Suzana argued that a person seeking judicial review must be an aggrieved person under the law, which Zahid cannot be classified as.

She also added that the 1MDB audit report is only required to be presented to the PAC, not all elected representatives.  

“It is not the normal report that is tabled in Parliament or state legislative assembly in each session,” Suzana said.

Haniff responded by noting that words cannot be inserted into the constitution, as the ”reports” stated in Article 107(1) does not specify which kind.

However, Justice Kamaludin Md Said remarked that there should be a limit to the interpretation of the term, since it cannot feasibly mean every report produced.

Haniff hit back, saying that there is no provision in the constitution for the auditor-general not to table the report.

Kamaludin fixed Dec 5 to deliver his decision.- Mkini