KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), like any other enforcement agencies, is governed by law and any action taken must not violate the very principle which it upholds.
Lawyer Haniff Khatri, in expressing dismay over the commission’s audio exposé, said the ‘rule of law’ mantra was not mere rhetorics and that a nation which strive for transparency, justice and true prosperity, must uphold the principle in all aspects of the government administration.
This, he said, held true from the civil society to the high-level of governance.
“Otherwise, the society could bid ‘goodbye’ to the dream and aspiration to be a developed nation.
“After the fateful May 9, 2018 (the formation of new government after general election), it has been the hope of every good civilian in the New Malaysia era, to see the country being governed with transparency, justice and prosperously through the uncompromising rule of law.
“Hence, the people had placed their hopes on the authorities, especially enforcement agencies like MACC, to show a good example (in upholding) the rule of law.
"This is so that the society of different backgrounds like the politicians, corporate sector, professionals and general public could emulate such practice,” he said in a statement.
However, he said, MACC under the helm of chief commissioner Latheefa Koya had wrongly opted to expose the findings and fresh investigation material evidence to the public, which was clearly against the rule of law in a Press conference broadcasted in a video clip which ran for an hour, 13 minutes and six seconds.
He said Latheefa should have instead instructed MACC officers to lodge a police report on the nine clips obtained from the public after the New Year and handed over the evidence to the police alone for further investigation.
Principally, he said, the content of the clips could prove the existence of other crimes as provided by the Penal Code.
He said evidence that needed further investigation by the police must not be exposed to the public, let alone revealing the content of the conversation which could paint a negative picture and impact among the general public, while the investigation had not even started.
Haniff also questioned whether Latheeya acted ahead of the court that was currently hearing various criminal charges brought and would be brought against former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
“Does such revelation could be deemed as contempt of court? Legally, could the content of the nine phone conversation recordings would be in favour of the prosecution or defence, as well as other parties involved?
“If I were to give an answer to these questions at this moment, it might also taint or give negative impact on the legal system which is in various stages of prosecution against Najib (as well as others), that is still either ongoing or would be initiated, and it would directly becomes an assistance of some sort in the form of being suggestive and (influence) further actions that could be taken by the relevant authorities whose responsibility lies with them alone.”
He said the move to exposed the clips was against the rule of law principle that one must not turn their back on in delivering justice.