The Star
In a statement to Bernama yesterday, the MACC said divulging a complaint could affect its investigation.
It was commenting on a news portal which claimed that Manika-vasagam could not attend the Selcat inquiry on the instructions of the MACC.
The MACC, said Manikavasagam, had contacted the commission on whether he could divulge the contents of his complaint over the theft involving Kuala Semesta Sdn Bhd.
In Petaling Jaya, Bar Council chairman Ragunath Kesavan said Section 29 (4) was not intended to stop legitimate tribunals from carrying out investigations, reports SHAILA KOSHY.
“It is to prevent mischief; it is meant to protect witnesses and prevent the sensationalisation of a case by revealing information at press conferences while the MACC is carrying out its investigations.”
He was responding to a question on why any public-spirited person would come forward if they ended up having to choose between being prosecuted or cited for contempt.
“How can Selcat investigate KSSB and its officers and take action if it cannot get evidence of wrongdoing?” asked Ragunath.
“That’s like saying an employee who lodges a police report about an alleged offence at the workplace cannot then testify in a domestic inquiry into the same matter.”
Ragunath questioned the appropriateness of the MACC applying Section 29 (4) in this case, when so much of the information was already in the public domain.
KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission has denied stopping Kapar MP S. Manikavasagam from attending the Selangor Select Committee on Competency, Accountability and Transparency (Selcat) inquiry into sand theft.
It claimed MACC officers only advised him that he could not divulge the contents of his complaint to the MACC to anyone, as it came under Section 29 (4) of the MACC Act 2009.
Under the provision, a complaint to the MACC is confidential until the person concerned is prosecuted.
It claimed MACC officers only advised him that he could not divulge the contents of his complaint to the MACC to anyone, as it came under Section 29 (4) of the MACC Act 2009.
Under the provision, a complaint to the MACC is confidential until the person concerned is prosecuted.
In a statement to Bernama yesterday, the MACC said divulging a complaint could affect its investigation.
It was commenting on a news portal which claimed that Manika-vasagam could not attend the Selcat inquiry on the instructions of the MACC.
The MACC, said Manikavasagam, had contacted the commission on whether he could divulge the contents of his complaint over the theft involving Kuala Semesta Sdn Bhd.
In Petaling Jaya, Bar Council chairman Ragunath Kesavan said Section 29 (4) was not intended to stop legitimate tribunals from carrying out investigations, reports SHAILA KOSHY.
“It is to prevent mischief; it is meant to protect witnesses and prevent the sensationalisation of a case by revealing information at press conferences while the MACC is carrying out its investigations.”
He was responding to a question on why any public-spirited person would come forward if they ended up having to choose between being prosecuted or cited for contempt.
“How can Selcat investigate KSSB and its officers and take action if it cannot get evidence of wrongdoing?” asked Ragunath.
“That’s like saying an employee who lodges a police report about an alleged offence at the workplace cannot then testify in a domestic inquiry into the same matter.”
Ragunath questioned the appropriateness of the MACC applying Section 29 (4) in this case, when so much of the information was already in the public domain.
No comments:
Post a Comment