Bung trial: Counsel objects to info provided by MACC officer

A lawyer today objected to the information provided by an MACC officer in the corruption trial of Kinabatangan MP Bung Moktar Radin and his wife Zizie Izette Abdul Samad.

Counsel K Kumaraendran who is representing Zizie (above, right) said the complaint by MACC senior superintendent Mohd Haris Ibrahim, 42, who is the 27th prosecution witness, was hearsay which could be prejudicial to Bung.

According to the lawyer, the complaint cannot be considered a first information report (FIR) as it was made based on information received from a senior officer as a third party and not from an informer.

“The prosecution attempted to use the backdoor so that the report was accepted by the court as a statement when no parties came forward to lodge the complaint,” he said.

Meanwhile, counsel M Athimulan who is representing Bung (above, left) said the report could not be accepted as a statement as nobody made the report to any MACC officer.

Earlier, Haris, who is the last prosecution witness in his statement said on June 9, 2016, he received instruction from a senior officer of Putrajaya MACC to write a complaint relating to a case.

Deputy public prosecutor Law Chin How however said the complaint, received by the senior officer, was categorised as FIR to enable the investigation to commence.

"This is part of the beginning of an investigation and is not based on the complaint in the report as proof of the prosecution,” he said.

Deputy public prosecutor Mohd Sophian Zakaria said an offence under MACC is special and the procedure in making a report for an MACC offence is different from other criminal cases.

‘MACC protects the informer’

Section 29(1) of the MACC Act 2009 states that complaints can be made to any MACC officer verbally or in writing and if the complaint is made orally, the complaint has to be changed into the written form and is read to the party making the complaint.

“The court cannot equate the procedure with other investigation cases as MACC protects the informer.

“Any MACC officer needs to make a complaint upon receiving any information on corruption cases even though the name of the informer is not be stated,” said Sophian.

Sessions Court Judge Rozina Ayob later ordered both parties to submit their written arguments on April 20 before she makes a decision on the objection on April 22.

On May 3, 2019, Bung, 64, pleaded not guilty to two charges of accepting bribes amounting to RM2.2 million and RM262,500 as an inducement to obtain Felcra's approval to invest RM150 million in Public Mutual unit trusts.

Bung, who was the non-executive chairperson of Felcra at the time, was accused of accepting bribes from Public Mutual Berhad's investment agent Madhi Abdul Hamid through Zizie at Public Bank's Taman Melawati branch in Kuala Lumpur between 12.30pm and 5pm on June 12, 2015.

He also pleaded not guilty to accepting a RM335,500 cash bribe from Norhaili under the name of Zizie for similar reasons, at the same place on June 19, 2015, while Zizie, 44, pleaded not guilty to three charges of abetting her husband in the matter at the same place, date, and time.

- Bernama