16th January 2022
Attorney General Tan Sri Idrus Harun must explain how it is both the MACC and SC can effectively carry out probes against each other more so when the investigations concerned involve complaints against top ranking officials currently serving in those institutions.
On 6 Jan, it was reported that SC would be in touch with MACC Chief Azam Baki over concerns involving certain shares.
On 11 Jan, it was reported that MACC had received complaints about certain individuals in the higher management and board of directors of the Securities Commission Malaysia (SC).
It would appear that the SC and MACC are probing individuals in each other.
The Attorney-General must state if there is a conflict or the possibility of investigations being either compromised or seen as compromised in such a situation.
Azam Baki remains the chief of MACC. Section 5 of the Act states that the MACC chief is responsible for the direction, control and supervision of all matters relating to the commission.
The report against the SC refers to individuals in the higher management and board of directors of the SC. Do they have a say in how investigations are conducted in the SC?
Would the Attorney General find investigations in such circumstances inspiring? He must also accept that in the event a case does proceed to court as a consequence of these investigations, these would become matters of concern which may impact on the trial.
The Attorney-General must speak up and explain. Is this proper and if not, what has he done to deal with it?
Gobind Singh Deo
MP for Puchong
