Azam Baki: I'm willing to meet PSC, but must go by the book

Underfire MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki is willing to appear before the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) over his alleged shareholding scandal, provided that the hearing is in accordance with the law.

According to news portal Free Malaysia Today, Azam told selected media that he did not appear before the committee last month as he had only received an “invite” to do so.

“Don’t mislead the public into thinking that I was subpoenaed and that by not turning up I was disrespectful and in contempt of Parliament.

“If there was a Dewan Rakyat referral, I would have definitely attended the meeting. I was merely upholding the law,” he said.

Azam added that the PSC meeting failed to adhere to Parliament rules, namely a standing order that requires the deliberations of a select committee to be confined to the matter referred to the committee by the house.

He also claimed that his lawyer advised him not to attend the committee meeting as the matter was being investigated by the Securities Commission (SC) and he had also filed a defamation suit against whistleblower Lalitha Kunaratnam who penned two articles that trigger the shareholding scandal.

The police announced yesterday that the report lodged by Lalitha was filed under no further action (NFA).

Shares ownership

Azam came under the spotlight over his ownership of 1,930,000 shares in Gets Global Berhad (previously KBES Berhad) on April 30, 2015, worth around RM772,000 at the time.

His shareholding in Gets Global Berhad went down to 1,029,500 as of March 31, 2016, worth around RM340,000 at the time.

He also held 2,156,000 warrants in Excel Force MSC Berhad in March 2016.

The share ownership in 2015 and 2016 raised questions on whether it was commensurate with his income as a public servant.

In a special press conference on Jan 5, Azam did not dispute the ownership of the shares but claimed they were bought in his name by his younger brother. The shares have since been transferred to his brother.

Nearly a week later, on Jan 18, the SC announced that it had concluded its inquiry into the case and that it is unable to conclusively establish a breach under Section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 (SICDA) had occurred.

However, following criticism, the SC clarified that it found that Azam had “control” over his own trading account and that it found no evidence of proxy trading.

Azam, who has denied wrongdoing, had raised concerns that the meeting would breach the Dewan Rakyat’s standing orders. - Mkini