No right to deprive access to lawyers during questioning

 

We refer to the press statement by the MACC on June 9, 2023 in response to our statement regarding MACC’s denial of legal counsel during the questioning or interrogation process.

We are appalled by their response, which essentially states that they can and will deprive the public of their right to lawyers during questioning as they see fit.

This is arbitrary, unlawful, and unbefitting a key enforcement agency of a democratic nation.

It is entirely dishonest for MACC to simply assume that as a legally empowered body, it means it will or has adhered to the Federal Constitution.

The death of Teoh Beng Hock and Ahmad Sarbani while in MACC custody, both of whom were denied access to lawyers when interrogation was conducted, are proof enough that our assertions of their denial of rights are not malicious.

It is a legitimate public concern that they have chosen to ignore.

Furthermore, the court decision in the case ‘Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission & Ors v Latheefa Beebi Koya & Anor’ has been misleadingly and wrongly quoted by MACC in their response.

That court’s statement with regards to the right of counsel of witnesses under Article 5 was mere ‘obiter dictum’, an opinion that is not legally binding.

An honest reading of the case would make clear that the sole question decided by the Federal Court was only whether a notice under section 30(1)(a) of the MACC Act can be judicially reviewed.

The case therefore cannot be used as an authority to deny the right to counsel under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution for those called for questioning or interrogation.

Like the devil quoting the scripture, MACC is quoting things out of context to justify their oppressive acts.

The case of ‘Datuk Hasanah Ab Hamid v MACC’ quoted is equally irrelevant. MACC’s references to Sosma and other laws that restrict access to legal counsel are equally nonsensical and irrelevant here.

Bare denials are insufficient

It speaks volumes that MACC in its statement has not addressed the concerns of the selective treatment given to important public figures as opposed to the average member of the public, nor does it address the unlawful acts of intimidation by its officers against lawyers by threatening to record their statements as well.

As they themselves admitted, as an enforcement agency enacted by the law, they must ensure that they adhere to the Federal Constitution and the rule of law.

As such, serious allegations such as those we raised must be investigated instead of issuing a statement of bare denials.

The Pakatan Harapan-led government, that has said repeatedly that it champions reform, must seriously look into the administration of MACC and investigate its actions of denying legal counsel for witnesses or suspects called for questioning.

The government is duty-bound to ensure all enforcement agencies, including MACC, respect the rule of law and the Constitution. - Mkini

---

ZAID MALEK is the director of human rights NGO Lawyers for Liberty.