A Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission officer was rapped for “abusing the law” by the Royal Commission of Inquiry investigating the death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock.

Mohd Anuar Ismail, who led the investigation into allegations that Seri Kembangan assemblyperson Ean yong Hian Wah misappropriated state funds, confessed that he evoked Section 31(3) of the MACC Act to enter the premises of the state secretariat building and to confiscate Teoh's desktop computer and laptop.

Commissioner T Selventhiranathan then told the MACC senior enforcement officer that the section of the Act could only be evoked in an "emergency situation", and that Section 31(1) of the Act had been "ignored".

"This operation was planned months back, so what's the emergency? This is an old case. You can't just grab and act as you please... this is an abuse of power.

"Anyone who has attended a law course and applied common sense would know that the law (Section 31 [3]) is for extraordinary situations," Selventhiranathan said.

However, Anuar, who is a lawyer by training, disagreed.

NONESection 31 provides powers for an investigator to search and seize. However, it states that a written order is first needed from the Attorney-General or an officer of the MACC with the rank of senior assistant commissioner or or above.

The investigating officer, who appeared before the panel for the first time, was in charge of taking Teoh in as a witness on allegations surrounding his employer, Ean Yong (right).

He told the panel that he had his first encounter with Teoh when he led a team of four men to the state secretariat building in Shah Alam to obtain documents backing claims made under allocations that were given Ean Yong.

Anuar said they had visited the premises without a warrant to enter nor to sequester anything, but told the asemblyperson that as an MACC enforcer, he had the right to do so.

Officer accused of 'emasculating' AG's powers

Selventhiranathan accused Anuar of “emasculating” the AG’s powers under Section 31(1) as the graftbuster would need to require written orders from the public prosecutor to search premises or seize belongings.

“This is an ordinary case. You are virtually emasculating the public prosecutor’s powers under (Section) 31(1),” said Selventhiranathan.

“It goes against Parliament’s intention for the law,” he blasted.

Asked by panel chief James Foong if such was common practice, Anuar admitted that most MACC officers utilised that subsection during investigations.

Rather peeved, Foong explained that section 31(3) should not be invoked unless there was “reasonable cause to suspect concealment”, as stated under the Act.

“In this case, the computer is here... and as we understand data can’t wiped out,” he said.

NONESelventhiranathan then said: “The law must read as a whole. You have to follow from section 31(1) till (3). You cannot exercise 31(3) straight away. It’s obvious”.

Anuar kept mum, but later said that “MACC has investigative powers”.

The officer, who found it difficult to speak as he had a sore throat, narrated every event that unfolded on July 15, 2009.  

Teoh was taken in to give evidence and to explain several “suspicious looking” documents at the Selangor MACC office on the14th floor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam.

The political secretary was found sprawled on fifth floor landing of the same building on July 16, 2009. An inquest into his death came out with an open verdict, ruling out suicide but inconclusive evidence to prove homicide.

Anuar continues his testimony before the royal panel tomorrow.