KUANTAN, June 22 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has filed a revision application against the Magistrate’s Court decision which rejected its application to obtain a remand order against a district police chief (OCPD) in Pahang to assist in the investigations of suspected corruption of over RM1 million.
The MACC in the application filed on June 21 named the district police chief as the respondent.
High Court Judge Datuk Zainal Azman Ab Aziz who heard the application today fixed July 7 for a decision.
Earlier, Deputy Public Prosecutor Rifah Izzati Abdul Mutalif said that the Magistrate had erred when rejecting the remand order application under Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) against the district police chief on the grounds that there is a specific provision under Section 49 of the MACC Act 2009 to do so.
She said the Magistrate, when making the decision, also relied on the decision of the Temerloh High Court on May 19 which ruled that Section 117 was not applicable to remand applications for offences investigated under the MACC Act 2009.
Section 49 of the MACC Act 2009 clearly states that every offence under the act is an arrestable offence for the purposes of the Criminal Code and can be released on bail, but there is no provision under the MACC Act 2009 that outlines the procedure for further detention of people arrested if the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours.
“As there is no provision on action against people who are arrested and cannot be released from custody for the purpose of investigation, we are arguing that the provision under the CPC ex necessitates the loophole in the MACC Act 2009,” Rifah Izzati said.
Section 117 of the CPC has been used for a long time to justify arrests, according to laws on persons arrested, if the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours.
“The Magistrate’s error in understanding the provisions of the MACC Act 2009 as expressed through the order to reject the remand application against the respondent has indirectly blocked and denied the functions and authority of the commission officer to investigate any complaint or offence under the MACC Act 2009 without any proper justification,” she argued.
Denying the remand application was also contrary to the legal principles, and the objective and purpose of the MACC’s role to combat corruption.
Rifah Izzati added there is a need for the High Court to use its power and discretion to correct the injustice to MACC officers in conducting investigations due to the ‘misconception of law’ that occurred at the Magistrate’s Court level.
On June 7, the Magistrate’s Court here rejected a remand application by the MACC against the 53-year-old district police chief to facilitate investigations into allegations of bribery involving over RM 1 million.
He was suspected to have received bribes over five years since 2017 from entertainment centre owners.
Meanwhile, lawyer Datuk Bob S Arumugam who represented the district police chief asked the court to reject the revision application on the grounds that arrests under the MACC Act must comply with the procedures in the MACC 2009, and the remand application must also be submitted in accordance with the same law and not under other provisions.
He said his client became the district police chief in mid-May 2018 while the alleged offence occurred in 2017, adding that the MACC must have carried out a thorough investigation for several months before making the arrest.
— Bernama
