By Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali
MACC Chief Commissioner Dato’ Azam Baki is reported to have said that MACC will no longer investigate the unsupported poison-pen letter
Firstly, Section 29 (3) of the MACC Act 2009 states that: where an officer of the Commission has reason to suspect the commission of an offence under this Act following a report made under subsection (1) or information otherwise received by him, he shall cause an investigation to be carried out and for such purpose may exercise all the powers of investigation provided for under this Act and the Criminal Procedure Code.
It is abundantly clear that the scope of MACC investigations is not only confined to the report made by a claimant but also ‘information otherwise received by him’ (emphasis added).
Hence Section 29 (3) above gives wide powers to the MACC to investigate any commission of offence(s). The statement by the MACC chief is unwarranted. It limits/minimises the wide powers of the MACC. It is the statutory duty of the MACC to investigate any information given to them, no matter what kind of ‘information’.
With the above statement, MACC is being regressive. How to get strong evidence?
It is only by starting the investigation. Outright dismissal of poison-pen letters instead of a thorough investigation to arrive at ‘strong evidence’, the MACC is indeed depriving the right of the informer/s to have his complaint heard, making the claimant’s effort redundant. This will lead to the public being discouraged.
MACC should not make itself toothless, which will erode public confidence in the MACC’s professionalism and transparency. It will also affect the investors’ confidence and dampens the Corruption Perception Index.
The Prime Minister’s audio recording of ‘scheme of things’ which in itself strong evidence, was already in the public domain. But there is no stern action thus far taken by MAAC, with no thorough investigation on it. MACC seems toothless against the establishment but highly aggressive against the non-establishment.
MACC should uphold its statutory duty professionally and transparently and not just waiting for the ‘strong evidence’ in order to commence their investigation. It is the MACC’s statutory duty to obtain ‘strong evidence’ through investigation.
The writer is a council member of the Malaysian Bar Council
