The MACC has opened an investigation paper against lawyer Mahajoth Singh over his alleged refusal to assist their investigation into claims made by his client, Albert Tei.
The agency’s chief commissioner, Azam Baki, said his officers had taken all necessary steps as per the law and SOPs in summoning the lawyer for questioning.
He said this included serving Mahajoth with a notice ordering him to appear at the MACC’s headquarters to have his statements recorded, which Azam said was done on Dec 2.
Despite the lawyer’s appearance, Azam said he refused to give his statement or hand over evidence, which prompted them to refer the matter to the deputy public prosecutor.
“The prosecutors, in their view, (saw) Mahajoth not as a lawyer who has confidential or non-confidential information that needs to be protected, but instead, he (was seen as a witness) who needs to cooperate, to assist our investigation.
“Under Section 30 of the MACC Act 2009, it is clear that he needs to appear to give his statement. It’s a must,” Azam said in a press conference today.
Lawyers not exempt
The MACC chief also acknowledged public reactions over their summoning of Mahajoth, including one by the Bar Council that claimed the anti-graft body had violated Section 46 of the Act.
He said such claims have no basis because Section 30(1) and Section 30(2) “clearly” empower the agency to call lawyers in for questioning.
“The law does not exempt any lawyers nor any other professions (from being called to give statements).
“Section 46 is in relation to client-solicitor privilege communication, which MACC has never requested nor demanded such confidential information.
“(But) what was requested was evidence and information within his possession as an individual who had important information that is related to (the ongoing) investigation.”
The principle of the law is clear, Azam said, where privileges do not protect individuals from the obligation to appear when summoned by the authorities, and that it does not protect documents or case materials that are not part of legal advice.
Privileged information
Mahajoth’s lawyer, Zaid Malek, told Malaysiakini on Dec 1 that they had appeared at the MACC headquarters, as requested.
However, he said no questioning was conducted as they served MACC with a letter on client-solicitor privilege, which Zaid claimed the officers refused to acknowledge.
“We’re saying (in the letter) that the notices they served to Mahajoth (on Nov 30) were invalid, it’s against the law as the notice is trying to compel him to disclose privileged information which (the MACC) cannot do.
“I served them the letter and asked them to acknowledge it. They refused to acknowledge the letter (so) I put my foot down, explained the letter (again), and we left. We see no point in discussing, as they refuse to acknowledge the letter.”
MACC officers had issued notices under Section 30(1)(a) and Section 30(1)(b) of the MACC Act to Mahajoth on Nov 30 that requested his attendance and sought certain documents and a handphone.
Mahajoth, in a statement on Dec 1, said he accepted the notices under strong protest and would attend the questioning at MACC headquarters under the same protest.
Raid and arrest
The MACC raided Tei’s residence in Puchong, Selangor, on Nov 28, where officers in bulletproof vests and balaclavas arrested the businessperson.
The raid and arrest followed Tei’s recent accusation against Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s former aide, Shamsul Iskandar Akin, whom the businessperson claimed he had spent RM629,000 on after being assured that the PKR man could help recoup money channelled to politicians in Sabah.
Besides funding renovations, appliances, and furnishings for two properties, Tei claimed he spent thousands of ringgit on premium cigars and tailored suits for Shamsul, who also purportedly requested money from the businessperson while travelling abroad.
Tei and Shamsul are to be brought to the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court tomorrow to face four charges each. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.