The MACC contended that Bersatu’s Ratu Naga had no right to a lawyer when she was being interrogated as part of an investigation.
The anti-graft watchdog also contended that the outspoken blogger, whose real name is Syarul Ema Rena Abu Samah, would only have the right to a lawyer if she was arrested.
MACC raised this in an affidavit in response to her lawsuit seeking to uphold her right to legal representation during questioning by the commission.
Her legal action against MACC, its chief commissioner Azam Baki, and the federal government is linked to her alleged arrest by the commission on Feb 16.
In its filing, MACC headquarters intelligence unit enforcer Tengku Nur Diyana Syamimi Tengku Zolnurin denied there was an actual arrest.
The officer contended that the plaintiff willingly went to the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya after being shown a summons notice for questioning.
Tengku Nur Diyana said Syarul Ema’s (above) fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution does not arise as the plaintiff was neither arrested nor detained.
“I state that at the material time, the plaintiff was not arrested but merely ordered to be orally questioned under Section 30(1) of the MACC Act 2009.
“I have been advised by federal counsel and state that the plaintiff does not have a legal right to be represented by a lawyer during an oral questioning under Section 30(1),” said Tengku Nur Diyana in the affidavit sighted by Malaysiakini.
The MACC officer explained this was the reason why Syarul Ema’s lawyer was not allowed to meet her until the interrogation was wrapped up.
Malaysiakini previously reported sources saying the MACC questioning was over a graft claim by Bersatu information committee member Badrul Hisham Shaharin against Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin, a senior political aide to the prime minister.
‘Given no choice’
Meanwhile, in her affidavit in reply, Syarul Ema reiterated her contention that her right to legal representation remains even for interrogation by MACC, per Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution.
The plaintiff rubbished MACC’s claim that she willingly went to the agency’s headquarters, stressing that she was not given a choice to be questioned at a different time.
Syarul Ema also reiterated that nothing in the MACC Act enables the agency and its officers to deny her fundamental right to legal representation during interrogation.
Law firm Daim and Gamany is acting for Syarul Ema.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) is representing MACC. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.