PETALING JAYA: Former KL CID chief Mat Zain Ibrahim has questioned the Malaysian
Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) operations evaluation panel’s (PPO)
authority to review its governing decision involving investigations into P
Balasubramaniam’s second statutory declaration (SD) or any other matters.
Mat Zain has also similarly questioned the PPO’s power to review the Public Prosecutor’s (PP) decisions.
PPO chairman Hadenan Abdul Jalil had recently announced that the case involving carpet trader Deepak Jaikishan was discussed during the PPO pre-meeting on Nov 8.
But Mat Zain said today that Hadenan had no authority to review decisions made by MACC and the PP.
His argument was based on a personal case in which he had appealed to the MACC advisory board to review a decision with regards to an investigation into a police report made by Anwar Ibrahim on July 1 2008.
Anwar had accused Abdul Gani Patail, Musa Hassan, Abdul Rahman Yusof and himself for falsifying evidence in the investigation of the “black eye” incident.
Mat Zain said on July 23 2009, he received an official letter from Abdul Hamid Mohamad, the chairman of Corruption Prevention Advisory Board (LPPR), a MACC panel which is above the PPO. The letter he said was also copied to Hadenan.
In the letter Abdul Hamid stated: “LPPR’s jurisdiction as provided by MACC Act Section 13 (Act 694) DOES NOT include reviewing any decision made by MACC and the Public Prosecutor in any particular case.”
Said Mat Zain: “If LPPR realised (then) that it did not have the authority to review decisions made by MACC and the Public Prosecutor, why did LPPR discuss in great detail my appeal on three occasions, on April 20, June 15 and June 25 2009?
“I can only conclude that the answer given was to cover up the criminal misconduct made by Gani Patail and Musa Hassan so that they would not face legal punishment.”
Bearing this in mind, Mat Zain questioned how Hadenan and his PPO could now review a MACC’s decision regarding Balasubramaniam’s second SD, when Abdul Hamid himself confirmed that the LPPR had no authority.
“There is no difference in whether Hadenan agrees or not with MACC’s decision because the PPO does not have authority to review cases, as confirmed by Abdul Hamid.
“If there really is a new law which enables PPO to review cases, then I want to make another appeal to LPPR to review the case on Gani and Musa which has been distorted,” he said.
‘Gani deliberately avoided accusing Bala’
Regarding Balasubramaniam, he said that Bala had made an open and written admission to Gani that his second SD was false and had even challenged Gani to charge him in court.
“When he admitted to the second SD as being false, then anyone involved in the preparation of that SD can be charged with abetting and should be sentenced along with Bala.
“Yet, Gani stressed that whatever Bala did was not a criminal offence because the SD was not to be used in court.
“But the Penal Code Section 193 states that coming out with a false statement, regardless of whether it is to be used in any levels of the court or for any other purposes is a criminal offence.
“Bala’s false SD is not only related to the cruelest murder of a foreign woman in the history of this country, it also contains authentic information concerning the prime minister and his family and more than that, the selling of defense intelligence and the country’s dignity.
“It is obvious that Gani deliberately avoided to accuse Bala because if action was taken, this will lead to a clash of Bala’s SD and Abdul Razak Baginda’s affidavit, not to mention, the prime minister’s ‘oath’ at the Guar Perahu mosque where he denied his relationship with Altantuya,” said Mat Zain.
Source : http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/12/22/%E2%80%98ppo-has-no-authority-to-review-balas-sd/
Mat Zain has also similarly questioned the PPO’s power to review the Public Prosecutor’s (PP) decisions.
PPO chairman Hadenan Abdul Jalil had recently announced that the case involving carpet trader Deepak Jaikishan was discussed during the PPO pre-meeting on Nov 8.
But Mat Zain said today that Hadenan had no authority to review decisions made by MACC and the PP.
His argument was based on a personal case in which he had appealed to the MACC advisory board to review a decision with regards to an investigation into a police report made by Anwar Ibrahim on July 1 2008.
Anwar had accused Abdul Gani Patail, Musa Hassan, Abdul Rahman Yusof and himself for falsifying evidence in the investigation of the “black eye” incident.
Mat Zain said on July 23 2009, he received an official letter from Abdul Hamid Mohamad, the chairman of Corruption Prevention Advisory Board (LPPR), a MACC panel which is above the PPO. The letter he said was also copied to Hadenan.
In the letter Abdul Hamid stated: “LPPR’s jurisdiction as provided by MACC Act Section 13 (Act 694) DOES NOT include reviewing any decision made by MACC and the Public Prosecutor in any particular case.”
Said Mat Zain: “If LPPR realised (then) that it did not have the authority to review decisions made by MACC and the Public Prosecutor, why did LPPR discuss in great detail my appeal on three occasions, on April 20, June 15 and June 25 2009?
“I can only conclude that the answer given was to cover up the criminal misconduct made by Gani Patail and Musa Hassan so that they would not face legal punishment.”
Bearing this in mind, Mat Zain questioned how Hadenan and his PPO could now review a MACC’s decision regarding Balasubramaniam’s second SD, when Abdul Hamid himself confirmed that the LPPR had no authority.
“There is no difference in whether Hadenan agrees or not with MACC’s decision because the PPO does not have authority to review cases, as confirmed by Abdul Hamid.
“If there really is a new law which enables PPO to review cases, then I want to make another appeal to LPPR to review the case on Gani and Musa which has been distorted,” he said.
‘Gani deliberately avoided accusing Bala’
Regarding Balasubramaniam, he said that Bala had made an open and written admission to Gani that his second SD was false and had even challenged Gani to charge him in court.
“When he admitted to the second SD as being false, then anyone involved in the preparation of that SD can be charged with abetting and should be sentenced along with Bala.
“Yet, Gani stressed that whatever Bala did was not a criminal offence because the SD was not to be used in court.
“But the Penal Code Section 193 states that coming out with a false statement, regardless of whether it is to be used in any levels of the court or for any other purposes is a criminal offence.
“Bala’s false SD is not only related to the cruelest murder of a foreign woman in the history of this country, it also contains authentic information concerning the prime minister and his family and more than that, the selling of defense intelligence and the country’s dignity.
“It is obvious that Gani deliberately avoided to accuse Bala because if action was taken, this will lead to a clash of Bala’s SD and Abdul Razak Baginda’s affidavit, not to mention, the prime minister’s ‘oath’ at the Guar Perahu mosque where he denied his relationship with Altantuya,” said Mat Zain.
Source : http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/12/22/%E2%80%98ppo-has-no-authority-to-review-balas-sd/
No comments:
Post a Comment