Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission accused of unlawful lawyer denial
Lawyers for Liberty (LFL), a Malaysian lawyer group, has stated that it is unlawful for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to deprive the public of their right to legal counsel during questioning. The group’s director, Zaid Malek, emphasised that MACC has no arbitrary right to deny the public legal counsel during the interrogation process.
“This is arbitrary, unlawful and unbefitting a key enforcement agency of a democratic nation,” Zaid Malek said in a statement. He was responding to a statement by MACC claiming it can deny the public legal counsel as it sees fit.
LFL has called on the federal government to seriously examine the administration of MACC and investigate the agency. According to Malek, the government has a responsibility to ensure all enforcement agencies, 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 body that it means that it will or has adhered to the Federal Constitution,” he said.
Malek highlighted the deaths of Teoh Beng Hock and Ahmad Sarbani while in MACC custody and without legal counsel during interrogation as evidence of the legitimate public concern.
LFL also stated that the court decision cited by MACC regarding their right to deny legal counsel, in the case of “Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission & Ors v Latheefa Beebi Koya & Anor”, was misleading.
“That court’s statement with regards to right of counsel of witnesses under Article 5 was merely ‘obiter dictum’, an opinion that is not legally binding,” Malek said.
He added that the sole question decided by the Federal Court in the case was only whether a notice under section 30(1)(a) of the MACC Act can 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 those called for questioning or interrogation,” he said.
Malek also mentioned that the case of “Datuk Hasanah Ab Hamid v MACC” that was quoted was irrelevant.
“MACC’s references to Sosma and other laws that restrict access to legal counsel are equally nonsensical and irrelevant here,” he said.
Furthermore, Malek pointed out that MACC did not address concerns regarding the selective treatment given to important public figures compared to the average individual.
“Nor does it address the unlawful acts of intimidation by its officers against lawyers by threatening to record their statements as well,” he said.
Malek concluded by stating that MACC, as an enforcement agency enacted by the law, must ensure that they adhere to the Federal Constitution and the rule of law.
