Hottest Online News Portal

MACC’s DPP Kevin Insists Notices To Lawyer Rosli Properly Issued

in Latest

KUALA LUMPUR: Kevin Anthony Morais, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC)’s deputy public prosecutor, today stressed that issuance of notices against lawyer Datuk Rosli Dahlan were done according to the law.

Testifying at the High Court here today, Morais said that he still had valid grounds to issue the notices.

Denying that the notices had been issued for improper motives, he insisted:

“They were issued based on investigations and accordance to the law.”

Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) was upgraded as MACC, an independent Commission in 2009.

Morais added that he had reason to believe that a crime had been committed under Section 11(a) of the then Anti-Corruption Act 1997 based on investigations carried out by investigating officer Saiful Ezral Ariffin.

Section 11(a) provides that any agent who corruptly accepts or obtains any gratification as an inducement or a reward for doing any act in relation to his principal’s affairs or business commits an offence.

Morais, former Deputy Director of MACC’s Legal and Prosecution Division claimed that he issued the notices premised on that suspicion.

Denying that the notices had been issued for improper motives, Morais as quoted by Free Malaysia Today insisted, “They were issued based on investigations and accordance to the law.”

Rosli had been charged in the Sessions Court in October 2007 for allegedly failing to declare his assets pursuant to notices dated July 17, 2007 and August 16, 2007 issued by Morais.

He was, however, acquitted in December 2010 without his defence being called.

Morais acknowledged that Sessions Court judge Abu Bakar Katar had rejected the reasons given by him for the issuance of the notice.

He also admitted the notices issued to Rosli and Datuk Ramli Yusoff, former Bukit Aman Commercial Crime Investigation Department Director, were inter-connected and that Judge M Gunalan had found that he had issued the notices “under strange circumstances in that it was based purely on the unsubstantiated and unsupported allegations by a complainant with dubious character having antecedents.”

“I was informed by the prosecutor who handled the case that the judge did not accept my reasons for issuing the notices,” Morais testified during cross-examination, “but I do not agree”.

Denying that the notices had been issued for improper motives, Morais insisted, “They were issued based on investigations and accordance to the law.”

He added that he had reason to believe that a crime had been committed under Section 11(a) of the then Anti-Corruption Act 1997 based on investigations carried out by investigating officer Saiful Ezral Ariffin.

Section 11(a) provides that any agent who corruptly accepts or obtains any gratification as an inducement or a reward for doing any act in relation to his principal’s affairs or business commits an offence.

He needed to declare his assets to enable the Anti-Corruption Agency to investigate whether he held any assets for Ramli, Morais said.

“However, in (Rosli’s) written reply, he did not comply with the orders but instead gave his opinions and raised questions on the matter,” he said.

The trial continues on Tuesday, June 9, 2015.

Tags:

Latest from Latest

Go to Top