Azeez lawyer disputes claim over lock-up attire, handcuffs

 

Counsel Datuk Amer Hamzah Arshad (inset) said police had instructed Azeez to change into the lock-up attire shortly before the remand proceedings. NSTP PIC

KUALA LUMPUR: The lawyer for former Lembaga Tabung Haji chairman Datuk Seri Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim denied that his client had chosen to wear a purple lock-up shirt and handcuffs when he appeared in court.

Counsel Datuk Amer Hamzah Arshad said police had instructed Azeez to change into the lock-up attire shortly before the remand proceedings.

"We are instructed by our client that, prior to leaving the police lock-up, he had initially been permitted to wear his normal clothing.

"However, shortly before he was brought out of the lock-up, he was instructed to change into the purple lock-up attire in compliance with the police standard operating procedures," he said in a statement today.

Amer said Azeez was then brought before the Sessions Court (Criminal) 2 for the police's remand application, where a two-day remand order was granted.

He said Azeez remained under police custody and control at all material times, adding that the handcuffs placed on him were also put on by police and not the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

"Following the remand proceedings, our client was brought directly from the Sessions Court (Criminal) 2 to the Sessions Court (Criminal) 9 for the MACC charge against him to be read.

"Throughout this entire period, including his transfer from one courtroom to the other, our client remained under police custody.

"He was not released from police custody in between the two proceedings, nor was he given any opportunity to change out of the lock-up attire before being brought before the Sessions Court (Criminal) 9," he said.

Amer said Azeez's appearance in the purple lock-up attire and handcuffs during the subsequent MACC proceedings was therefore not a matter of personal choice.

"We are therefore flabbergasted by the statement attributed to the MACC suggesting that our client had chosen or insisted upon wearing the lock-up attire and handcuffs.

"For the avoidance of doubt, our client was under police custody throughout, and the lock-up attire and handcuffs concerned arose in the course of that police custody," he said.

He said any suggestion that Azeez had voluntarily chosen to appear in that manner was incorrect and gave a misleading impression of the circumstances in which he was brought before the court.

Earlier today, MACC said Azeez had chosen to appear in court wearing a police lock-up uniform and handcuffs despite being advised that he did not have to do so. - NST