MACC: Teoh had no choice

Teoh Beng Hock “had no choice” but to appear as a witness in the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission's (MACC) probe into alleged misappropriation of Selangor government funds in 2009.

Selangor MACC investigating officer Mohd Anuar Ismail (left) the ongoing royal commission of inquiry (RCI) that Teoh was told to report to the office in Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam, “to examine some files” on July 15, 2009.

Conducting officer Awang Amardajaya Awang Mahmud asked if Teoh “could refuse”.

Mohd Anuar replied that DAP lawyer M Manoharan had confirmed that Teoh and his employer Ean Yong Hian Wah, the Seri Kembangan assemblyperson, “would give their full cooperation” in the probe.

Mohd Anuar said he had met Manoharan at Teoh's office in the state secretariat building on July 15 before taking Teoh in as a witness.

He said he had not “given Teoh a choice as to what time to come” to the MACC office, but that he “would have not let Teoh leave until and after his statement was recorded”.

Earlier, Mohd Anuar had referred to his testimony yesterday that he did not apply for a search and seizure warrant from the public prosecutor as required under Section 31(1) of the MACC Act.

Instead, he said he had gone beyond the sub-section of the Act and invoked Section 31(3) to sequester the central processing unit of Teoh's desktop computer and laptop, on the basis that this was an “emergency” situation and the possibility of concealment could arise.

Today, Mohd Anuar rectified his statement, saying he had acted under Section 29(3) which states that an investigator “may exercise all the powers of investigation provided for under the Act and the Criminal Procedure Code”.

He also told the royal panel that this provision “supercedes” Section 31.

Mohd Anuar said Teoh had “kept silent” most of the time although he was not pressured while his statement was being recorded.

Commissioner T Selventhiranathan interjected and suggested that Teoh could have been silent because he might have felt “intimidated”.

“He was surrounded by four officers and for a person who had stepped into the office for the first time, he could have been intimidated,” he noted.

Mohd Anuar stressed that the “environment was normal” .

The RCI was formed to look into the cause of Teoh’s death as well as assess the MACC's interrogation procedures.

Its proceedings began on Feb 14 and the final report is to be presented to the Agong by April 25. 

‘Wrong method’ used?

Mohd Anuar then recounted the events prior to Teoh’s fatal fall from the 14th floor of Plaza Masalam.

He explained that he had instructed an officer to print out four invoices thought to be fake documents from Teoh’s laptop, and had asked Teoh about them.

He said that he had initially suspected “double claims, manipulation of costs and marked-up prices” after looking through the invoices.

After briefing his supervising officer Hairul Ilham Hamzah, who heads the investigation unit, Mohd Anuar said he left the office to pick his maid up at the airport.

The commissioners interrupted to ask why Teoh’s statement was recorded in the meeting room and not in a place where he could relax, since he was just a witness.

Panel chief James Foong told Mohd Anuar that Teoh could have been interviewed in “the pantry, his office or in (the room of) another officer in-charge”.

Selventhiranathan then suggested that Mohd Anuar’s intention was to “surround Teoh and intimidate him”.

The officer disagreed, insisting that the meeting room was the most comfortable place in the MACC office and Teoh was led there so that he could “relax and stay calm”.

Commissioner Dr Hatta Shaharom countered this, pointing out that Teoh “was not a guest” but a witness who was to be interviewed, and said “wrong methods” could have been applied.

Although Hatta did not go into details, he hinted that Mohd Anuar’s instruction to four officers to surround Teoh was the “wrong method”.

Mohd Anuar reiterated that “Teoh’s anxiety lessened” when he was in the meeting room.

The commissioners then cornered the investigator as to whether he had personally checked on Teoh’s welfare when held overnight at the office.
 
“At that point in time, I was not aware if Teoh had anything to eat or drink... but assumed Teoh was taken care of, as it is common practice for the interviewing officer to buy food,” he said.

According to him, officers were given RM500 for the operation and would normal buy witnesses “fried rice with chicken”.

“You want to torture him?” asked Foong again.

Mohd Anuar objected to the suggestion that he had tortured Teoh or contributed in any way towards his death.

“You want to stress him? Do you think (that) because you didn’t do that (take care of Teoh’s welfare), it was a factor causing his death?” asked Foong.

Mohd Anuar disagreed again.