Lawyers for Liberty (LFL), a Malaysian lawyer group, has said that it is illegal for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to deprive the public of their right to authorized counsel during questioning. The group’s director, Zaid Malek, emphasised that MACC has no arbitrary proper to disclaim the general public authorized counsel during the interrogation process.
“This is unfair, unlawful and unbefitting a key enforcement agency of a democratic nation,” Zaid Malek mentioned in a press release. He was responding to a press release by MACC claiming it can deny the public authorized counsel because it sees fit.
Swipe has referred to as on the federal government to seriously look at the administration of MACC and investigate the agency. According to Malek, the federal government has a responsibility to make sure all enforcement companies, including MACC, respect the rule of regulation and the Federal Constitution.
“It is totally dishonest for MACC to simply assume that as a legally empowered body that it means that it will or has adhered to the Federal Constitution,” he mentioned.
Malek highlighted the deaths of Teoh Beng Hock and Ahmad Sarbani while in MACC custody and without legal counsel throughout interrogation as evidence of the respectable public concern.
LFL additionally acknowledged that the court choice cited by MACC regarding their right to disclaim legal counsel, in the case of “Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission & Ors v Latheefa Beebi Koya & Anor”, was deceptive.
“That court’s assertion with regards to right of counsel of witnesses underneath Article 5 was merely ‘obiter dictum’, an opinion that’s not legally binding,” Malek mentioned.
He added that the sole query decided by the Federal Court in the case was only whether a discover under section 30(1)(a) of the MACC Act could be judicially reviewed.
“The case therefore cannot be used as an authority to deny right to counsel under article 5 of the Federal Constitution for these known as for questioning or interrogation,” he mentioned.
Malek also mentioned that the case of “Datuk Hasanah Ab Hamid v MACC” that was quoted was irrelevant.
“MACC’s references to Sosma and different laws that restrict entry to legal counsel are equally nonsensical and irrelevant here,” he said.
Furthermore, Malek pointed out that MACC did not handle issues regarding the selective therapy given to necessary public figures compared to the common particular person.
“Nor does it tackle the illegal acts of intimidation by its officers towards lawyers by threatening to report their statements as well,” he mentioned..