A MACC senior officer says that the organisation does not produce warrants when seeking evidence and documents from government agencies.
KUALA LUMPUR: A Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) senior official today told the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) investigating Teoh Beng Hock’s death that the organisation prefers a soft approach.
Deputy Chief Commissioner, Mohd Shukri Abdull, said this when answering questions regarding MACC’s investigation procedures and practices.
Earlier, RCI chairman James Foong asked what were the rules the MACC officers observed when they are on the ground.
He said that the procedures pertaining to investigation were a “grey area” which needed further clarification.
Shukri, 51, said that MACC would ask for evidence and documents from government offices without a warrant.
He added that according to MACC Act 30(1)(b), this procedure was in line with normal practice.
“We would ask (for the documents and evidence) directly without a warrant. We are polite in getting documents and case materials,” he said, adding that government agencies also preferred the polite approach.
“With a warrant it may look slightly kasar (rough),” he added.
When asked what was MACC’s procedure pertaining to Teoh’s case, Shukri said that in Teoh’s case, the MACC had raided his office without a warrant as the organisation thought that a warrant was not “a priority”.
Earlier, Shukri earlier said that the MACC had authority to investigate under sections 29, 30 and 31 of the MACC Act.
Shukri has been serving in the MACC since 1984. At the time of Teoh’s death in July 2009, he held the post of MACC director of investigation.
He was called to testify before the RCI as the commission is also looking at ways of improving MACC’s procedures.
Teoh was found dead the morning after his overnight interrogation by MACC officers at their office in Shah Alam. He was political aide to Ean Yong Hian Wah, the Selangor state executive councillor the agency was investigating for alleged misappropriation of funds. His body was found on the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam, the same building that houses the MACC office.
The inquiry currently in session is looking into Teoh’s death and MACC interrogation methods. It was formed after an inquest had previously failed to determine if there was foul play in Teoh’s death.
The commission today gave MACC a week to answer a list of questions regarding MACC’s standard procedure. Shukri takes the stand again next Monday.
Contradictory statements
Enforcement officer, Mohd Nazri Ibrahim, was rapped for giving two contradictory statements about Teoh’s expression and body-language while the latter’s statement was recorded.
Nazri is the officer who recorded Teoh’s statement from 1.30am to 3.30am on July 16, hours before Teoh’s death.
Bar Council representative Cheow Wee pointed out the different terms Nazri had used to describe Teoh’s demeanour while the latter’s statement was recorded.
He said that during MACC’s internal investigation conducted in August 2009 by its complaints committee, words such as “calm, relaxed and normal” were used to describe Teoh’s demeanour.
However, Cheow said the terms differed from Nazri’s statement to the RCI, where he used the words “restless, anxious, sombre and serious”.
Cheow: I want to know how at the internal investigation (you said) Teoh was relaxed, calm and normal but you told us at the RCI that the deceased was ‘restless, anxious, sombre and serious’. Now which is true?
Nazri later said that it was difficult to determine Teoh’s facial expression as he had not met him previously. When pressed, Nazri said that there were times when Teoh appeared relaxed and other times when he looked restless.
Nazri: There were times when he appeared relaxed; at other times, he was sighing and yawning. I can only confirm that he was yawning. I can’t confirm his facial expression.
Cheow then suggested that Nazri was coached to give contradictory statements on Teoh’s demeanour to produce a larger narrative that Teoh committed suicide.
Cheow: Nazri, you had minimal involvement in the case, you were about to go home (after recording Teoh’s statement). Were you coached or instructed (to give contradictory statements)?
Nazri answered in the negative.
Cheow asked if any interaction between Nazri and a MACC higher authority had taken place after Teoh’s death.
Nazri said that the meetings were ordinary ones and he could not remember if any other details were discussed.
He said that he could not remember if the higher authority had tried to contact him for a special meeting regarding Teoh.
Why the need for two IDs?
Nazri was also rapped for keeping two IDs (investigation diaries). He said that he prepared the first ID two or three days after Teoh’s death and the second one for the RCI at the beginning of this year.
He said the second ID was needed to give a more detailed account of what had transpired.
This irked Foong who said:
“You can practically dismiss the second ID… What kind of a diary is this? It’s worth nothing. Anything that is left behind (you have included) to make it look good. It is not a detailed but advanced diary. Whatever things that were adverse to you, would you have repeated them?”
Nazri said that whatever he had recorded in the second ID was true.
At this stage, commissioner T Selventhiranathan said that most MACC officers who had given their statements had kept a second ID. He suggested that the use of the second ID was for MACC to protect itself from any allegations.
Selventhiranathan: (I put it to you that) the reason (for the second ID) is make the stories in sync with that of other officers who are involved in Teoh’s case to strengthen MACC’s (account) of what happened.
Nazri evaded the question, merely saying that his second ID was based on his memory and he had consulted investigation officer (IO) Mohd Anuar Ismail only to determine the time of events and nothing more.
On Teoh’s signature, Cheow said that even to untrained eyes, his signature on the first page of his statement looked different from the one on the last page.
Bar Council representative Christopher Leong added that the strokes and loop were different.
Cheow suggested that since Nazri was the one who handled the statement, he had forged Teoh’s signature. Nazri denied it.
The RCI then decided that Teoh’s statement bearing his signature will be sent to the Chemistry Department to determined if it was forged.
Mystery letter
The mystery letter that had surfaced in the middle of last year’s inquest reappeared today.
The letter is purportedly a suicide note from Teoh addressed to his boss, Ean Yong, containing an apology to the latter.
MACC lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah spefically pointed out the part where it was stated, “Saya kata dapat kelulusan YB tapi mereka menaip ikut arahan YB” (I said that I received YB’s approval but they typed that I followed YB’s orders).
Muhammad Shafee then asked Nazri if he had indeed put words into Teoh’s mouth, to which he denied.
He repeatedly said that he had always consulted Teoh before typing the statement and Teoh had agreed with Nazri’s choice of words.
Cheow also suggested that Teoh was not released from questioning that night because an order was not given to stop the interrogation.
Nazri denied it, maintaining that he had said that Teoh could go home for the night as instructed by Anuar.
Nazri was also asked if he felt guilty of Teoh’s death. He said that he personally didn’t feel it that way.
“I feel that I am good to the witness and suspect. I have never made him feel pressured. I always use a kind approach”.
The RCI continues tomorrow. Former Selangor MACC deputy director, Hishammuddin Hashim, will take the stand. He will be followed by British forensics expert Prof Dr Peter Vanezis.
KUALA LUMPUR: A Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) senior official today told the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) investigating Teoh Beng Hock’s death that the organisation prefers a soft approach.Deputy Chief Commissioner, Mohd Shukri Abdull, said this when answering questions regarding MACC’s investigation procedures and practices.
Earlier, RCI chairman James Foong asked what were the rules the MACC officers observed when they are on the ground.
He said that the procedures pertaining to investigation were a “grey area” which needed further clarification.
Shukri, 51, said that MACC would ask for evidence and documents from government offices without a warrant.
He added that according to MACC Act 30(1)(b), this procedure was in line with normal practice.
“We would ask (for the documents and evidence) directly without a warrant. We are polite in getting documents and case materials,” he said, adding that government agencies also preferred the polite approach.
“With a warrant it may look slightly kasar (rough),” he added.
When asked what was MACC’s procedure pertaining to Teoh’s case, Shukri said that in Teoh’s case, the MACC had raided his office without a warrant as the organisation thought that a warrant was not “a priority”.
Earlier, Shukri earlier said that the MACC had authority to investigate under sections 29, 30 and 31 of the MACC Act.
Shukri has been serving in the MACC since 1984. At the time of Teoh’s death in July 2009, he held the post of MACC director of investigation.
He was called to testify before the RCI as the commission is also looking at ways of improving MACC’s procedures.
Teoh was found dead the morning after his overnight interrogation by MACC officers at their office in Shah Alam. He was political aide to Ean Yong Hian Wah, the Selangor state executive councillor the agency was investigating for alleged misappropriation of funds. His body was found on the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam, the same building that houses the MACC office.
The inquiry currently in session is looking into Teoh’s death and MACC interrogation methods. It was formed after an inquest had previously failed to determine if there was foul play in Teoh’s death.
The commission today gave MACC a week to answer a list of questions regarding MACC’s standard procedure. Shukri takes the stand again next Monday.
Contradictory statements
Enforcement officer, Mohd Nazri Ibrahim, was rapped for giving two contradictory statements about Teoh’s expression and body-language while the latter’s statement was recorded.
Nazri is the officer who recorded Teoh’s statement from 1.30am to 3.30am on July 16, hours before Teoh’s death.
Bar Council representative Cheow Wee pointed out the different terms Nazri had used to describe Teoh’s demeanour while the latter’s statement was recorded.
He said that during MACC’s internal investigation conducted in August 2009 by its complaints committee, words such as “calm, relaxed and normal” were used to describe Teoh’s demeanour.
However, Cheow said the terms differed from Nazri’s statement to the RCI, where he used the words “restless, anxious, sombre and serious”.
Cheow: I want to know how at the internal investigation (you said) Teoh was relaxed, calm and normal but you told us at the RCI that the deceased was ‘restless, anxious, sombre and serious’. Now which is true?
Nazri later said that it was difficult to determine Teoh’s facial expression as he had not met him previously. When pressed, Nazri said that there were times when Teoh appeared relaxed and other times when he looked restless.
Nazri: There were times when he appeared relaxed; at other times, he was sighing and yawning. I can only confirm that he was yawning. I can’t confirm his facial expression.
Cheow then suggested that Nazri was coached to give contradictory statements on Teoh’s demeanour to produce a larger narrative that Teoh committed suicide.
Cheow: Nazri, you had minimal involvement in the case, you were about to go home (after recording Teoh’s statement). Were you coached or instructed (to give contradictory statements)?
Nazri answered in the negative.
Cheow asked if any interaction between Nazri and a MACC higher authority had taken place after Teoh’s death.
Nazri said that the meetings were ordinary ones and he could not remember if any other details were discussed.
He said that he could not remember if the higher authority had tried to contact him for a special meeting regarding Teoh.
Why the need for two IDs?
Nazri was also rapped for keeping two IDs (investigation diaries). He said that he prepared the first ID two or three days after Teoh’s death and the second one for the RCI at the beginning of this year.
He said the second ID was needed to give a more detailed account of what had transpired.
This irked Foong who said:
“You can practically dismiss the second ID… What kind of a diary is this? It’s worth nothing. Anything that is left behind (you have included) to make it look good. It is not a detailed but advanced diary. Whatever things that were adverse to you, would you have repeated them?”
Nazri said that whatever he had recorded in the second ID was true.
At this stage, commissioner T Selventhiranathan said that most MACC officers who had given their statements had kept a second ID. He suggested that the use of the second ID was for MACC to protect itself from any allegations.
Selventhiranathan: (I put it to you that) the reason (for the second ID) is make the stories in sync with that of other officers who are involved in Teoh’s case to strengthen MACC’s (account) of what happened.
Nazri evaded the question, merely saying that his second ID was based on his memory and he had consulted investigation officer (IO) Mohd Anuar Ismail only to determine the time of events and nothing more.
On Teoh’s signature, Cheow said that even to untrained eyes, his signature on the first page of his statement looked different from the one on the last page.
Bar Council representative Christopher Leong added that the strokes and loop were different.
Cheow suggested that since Nazri was the one who handled the statement, he had forged Teoh’s signature. Nazri denied it.
The RCI then decided that Teoh’s statement bearing his signature will be sent to the Chemistry Department to determined if it was forged.
Mystery letter
The mystery letter that had surfaced in the middle of last year’s inquest reappeared today.
The letter is purportedly a suicide note from Teoh addressed to his boss, Ean Yong, containing an apology to the latter.
MACC lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah spefically pointed out the part where it was stated, “Saya kata dapat kelulusan YB tapi mereka menaip ikut arahan YB” (I said that I received YB’s approval but they typed that I followed YB’s orders).
Muhammad Shafee then asked Nazri if he had indeed put words into Teoh’s mouth, to which he denied.
He repeatedly said that he had always consulted Teoh before typing the statement and Teoh had agreed with Nazri’s choice of words.
Cheow also suggested that Teoh was not released from questioning that night because an order was not given to stop the interrogation.
Nazri denied it, maintaining that he had said that Teoh could go home for the night as instructed by Anuar.
Nazri was also asked if he felt guilty of Teoh’s death. He said that he personally didn’t feel it that way.
“I feel that I am good to the witness and suspect. I have never made him feel pressured. I always use a kind approach”.
The RCI continues tomorrow. Former Selangor MACC deputy director, Hishammuddin Hashim, will take the stand. He will be followed by British forensics expert Prof Dr Peter Vanezis.
No comments:
Post a Comment