THE lack of transparency in the recent arrests of MACC officers linked to alleged missing exhibits is cause for concern.

Seizable criminal offences, if disclosed in a report, must be investigated by the police. It is also mandatory that the procedure of regular transparent first information reports be followed.

Discretion has no place for criminal offences that involve misappropriation, theft in dwelling or criminal breach of trust offences as defined in the penal code or other laws outside the ambit of the MACC.

I emphasise this point from experience, having been in a similar situation as a district crime chief when exhibits were allegedly tampered with in the anti-corruption office within my jurisdiction. The department head contacted the district police chief and lodged a police report.  

The case was classified as a theft in dwelling offence, giving the police the powers to search, seize and arrest. Consequently the whole exercise in meticulous procedural law proved to be invaluable when the principal case of by the anti-graft investigators went to trial.

The police investigations were crucial in establishing the authenticity and chain of evidence of the exhibits and the allegations.

MACC officers are not trained nor have they the experience to investigate criminal offences apart from cases of corruption.

This is also why criminal offences disclosed must be investigated with the normal procedure as all other police reports. The purpose of the MACC in their respective Act is specific and must be adhered to in the strictest available interpretation.

Although they have the same special powers of investigations as the police they should not usurp the roles and functions of the police.

The MACC was set up solely to combat corruption and should not delve into investigating criminal offences under the law. There will be legal consequences if the matter should go all the way through the criminal justice system, especially when it is tested in all the tiers of judicial appeal.

The contemporary act to fight corruption is crystal clear on the specific purpose of MACC roles and functions.

It would seem that we now need a watchdog for the MACC too, such as the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission has been proposed the police.

The police force has constantly been slammed for its inability to investigate itself. We need to also consider a watchdog for the MACC in view of the revelations in this case. – September 22, 2021.

* G. Selva reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.