MACC 'prefers to work without warrants'

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) "prefers to act without a warrant" in its operations, such as interviewing witnesses and seizing evidence from them, said its deputy commissioner Mohd Shukri Abdull.

Shukri told the royal commission of inquiry (RCI) into the death of Teoh Beng Hock that this is because MACC would be seen as performing its duties in a "much more rough" manner if it were to act with a warrant.

"We need to get documents or evidence, especially from government departments, so we practise a polite manner so as to get the case materials," he said.

"The MACC prefers to act in this manner in cases relating to government offices... there are instances where certain parties would ask for a written order, and so we will submit," Shukri (left) said, adding that as far the commission was concerned getting warrants was not a "priority".

Teoh, the political secretary to Seri Kembangan assemblyperson Ean Yong Hian Wah, was taken in as a witness by the Selangor MACC on July 15, 2009 in connection with its investigations against Ean Yong into an allegation of misuse of Selangor government funds.

Last week, investigating officer Mohd Anuar Ismail had testified that MACC did not have a warrant when apprehending Teoh at his office at the state secretariat building in Shah Alam two years ago and seizing several of his belongings, including the central processing unit (CPU) of a desktop computer and a laptop.

Anuar (below, right) had said the MACC could do so without a "written order" from the attorney-general as there were provisions under the MACC Act allowing an enforcer to proceed without a warrant.

Shukri, who has been with the force since 1984, was director of investigations in 2009, prior to his promotion to deputy commissioner last year.

He explained that Sections 29, 30, 31 and 47 of the MACC Act provide the officers with power to act.

Inquiry panel chief Justice James Foong pointed out that a team of MACC investigators went to Ean Yong's office to sequester documents and equipment without obtaining an official order.

Shukri said in Teoh's case, it was "unnecessary" to produce a warrant as the powers for the MACC officers to act is vested in Section 30(1)(b) of the Act.

The provision allows an officer to demand documented proof, records and computerised data that would assist investigations to be produced.

Failure to comply with the command, Shukri added, would be deemed an offence under Section 48 of the Act.

Shukri given a week to answer

Teoh, who was questioned overnight at the Selangor MACC office on the 14th floor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam, was found dead on the fifth floor service corridor of the building the next afternoon.

A coroner's inquest returned an open verdict in January, after an 18-month hearing.

The RCI was set up soon after to find out the cause of Teoh's death and pinpoint misdemeanours in MACC's investigations procedures, if any, in handling the case.

As the royal panel has a long list of questions for the deputy commissioner, Foong relieved him of testifying today and gave him a week to prepare.

"We will get you the recording of the proceedings so that you know what we want," Foong said.

Shukri will next week be required to elaborate, among others, the agency's 'Standing Orders', the necessary groundwork or foundation work and other related procedures.

"Generally, what are the interview processes for witnesses? The interview process should include the manner of interview, time, method, who is responsible, place, welfare of witnesses and different categories of attendees, for example, (marking) suspects, informants, witnesses and how different are they treated" Foong said.

The sitting Federal Court judge (left) also told Shukri to submit an organisational chart of Selangor MACC to determine "who was generally responsible in giving orders in July 2009 ".

"Any standing orders or directives from headquarters to branch offices, particularly Selangor? In cases of emergency, are there any standing orders or directives? Who reports to whom?" Foong asked, adding that no one seemed to know what was going on during Teoh's time there.

He also directed Shukri to detail out differences in techniques used in the interview of witnesses and suspects.

Among the other questions posed to Shukri by the royal panel were:

• Does the MACC look at the psychological aspect of a case?

• Rights of witnesses before being interviewed?

• Any directive that interviews be held at the ground floor to prevent people from committing suicide; and what is a suitable place for interview sessions?

• Representation of lawyers for suspects or witnesses: is a lawyer is allowed to be present during interview of witnesses?

• Modules for beginners' courses for new officers, and refresher courses held subsequently?

• General usage and interpretation of law to establish the facts of a case, and (in reference to earlier testimonies) that there is no need to get consent from the public prosecutor under Section 31(3) of MACC Act to conduct a search.

The inquiry resumed with Mohd Nazri Ibrahim, the MACC officer who recorded Teoh's witness statement in the wee hours of July 16, 2009, taking the stand.