Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission accused of illegal lawyer denial

Lawyers for Liberty (LFL), a Malaysian lawyer group, has acknowledged that it’s unlawful for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to deprive the basic public of their right to authorized counsel throughout questioning. The group’s director, Zaid Malek, emphasised that MACC has no arbitrary proper to disclaim the general public authorized counsel through the interrogation course of.
“This is bigoted, illegal and unbefitting a key enforcement company of a democratic nation,” Zaid Malek said in a press release. He was responding to a press release by MACC claiming it could deny the public legal counsel as it sees fit.
LFL has called on the federal government to noticeably study the administration of MACC and examine the company. According to Malek, the government has a responsibility to ensure all enforcement businesses, including MACC, respect the rule of law and the Federal Constitution.
“It is entirely dishonest for MACC to simply assume that as a legally empowered physique that it means that it’ll or has adhered to the Federal Constitution,” he stated.
Malek highlighted the deaths of Teoh Beng Hock and Ahmad Sarbani while in MACC custody and with out legal counsel throughout interrogation as proof of the respectable public concern.
Recognized said that the court choice cited by MACC regarding their proper to deny authorized counsel, within the case of “Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission & Ors v Latheefa Beebi Koya & Anor”, was misleading.
“That court’s assertion with regards to right of counsel of witnesses underneath Article 5 was merely ‘obiter dictum’, an opinion that is not legally binding,” Malek stated.
He added that the solely real query decided by the Federal Court within the case was solely whether a discover under part 30(1)(a) of the MACC Act could be judicially reviewed.
“The case therefore can’t be used as an authority to deny proper to counsel beneath article 5 of the Federal Constitution for these referred to as for questioning or interrogation,” he mentioned.
Malek additionally talked about that the case of “Datuk Hasanah Ab Hamid v MACC” that was quoted was irrelevant.
“MACC’s references to Sosma and other laws that limit entry to legal counsel are equally nonsensical and irrelevant right here,” he mentioned.
Furthermore, Malek pointed out that MACC did not handle issues concerning the selective remedy given to necessary public figures compared to the common particular person.
“Nor does it tackle the illegal acts of intimidation by its officers against attorneys by threatening to record their statements as well,” he stated..

Leave a Comment