Lawyers for Liberty (LFL), a Malaysian lawyer group, has acknowledged that it’s illegal for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to deprive the common public of their proper to legal counsel during questioning. The group’s director, Zaid Malek, emphasised that MACC has no arbitrary proper to disclaim the common public authorized counsel through the interrogation course of.
“This is bigoted, unlawful and unbefitting a key enforcement agency of a democratic nation,” Zaid Malek said in an announcement. He was responding to an announcement by MACC claiming it could deny the public legal counsel as it sees match.
LFL has referred to as on the federal government to noticeably look at the administration of MACC and examine the company. According to Malek, the government has a duty to ensure all enforcement businesses, including MACC, respect the rule of regulation and the Federal Constitution.
“It is entirely dishonest for MACC to simply assume that as a legally empowered physique that it means that it’ll or has adhered to the Federal Constitution,” he said.
Malek highlighted the deaths of Teoh Beng Hock and Ahmad Sarbani whereas in MACC custody and with out legal counsel during interrogation as evidence of the respectable public concern.
LFL additionally acknowledged that the court determination 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.
“ No nonsense ’s assertion as regards to right of counsel of witnesses beneath Article 5 was merely ‘obiter dictum’, an opinion that’s not legally binding,” Malek said.
He added that the only real query determined by the Federal Court in the case was only whether or not a discover underneath part 30(1)(a) of the MACC Act can be judicially reviewed.
“The case due to this fact can’t be used as an authority to disclaim proper to counsel beneath article 5 of the Federal Constitution for these known as for questioning or interrogation,” he mentioned.
Malek also talked about that the case of “Datuk Hasanah Ab Hamid v MACC” that was quoted was irrelevant.
“MACC’s references to Sosma and other legal guidelines that restrict entry to legal counsel are equally nonsensical and irrelevant here,” he said.
Furthermore, Malek identified that MACC did not address concerns concerning the selective remedy given to important public figures compared to the average individual.
“Nor does it address the unlawful acts of intimidation by its officers towards attorneys by threatening to document their statements as properly,” he said..