AZAM Baki must answer questions about ethics over his share trading account in a Parliament panel despite authorities saying the graft-buster did not breach any rules, lawmakers said.

The Special Select Committee on Agencies under the Prime Minister’s Department was to have questioned the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief yesterday but it was called off.

“We are entitled to call Azam Baki. The outcome of the Securities Commission (SC) probe has nothing to do with the committee’s investigation,” said panel member William Leong, who is also Selayang MP.

The SC on Tuesday said it was “not able to conclusively establish” whether the MACC chief commissioner had breached the law in allowing his trading account to be used by his brother for shares purchased in 2015 and 2016.

Yesterday, however, SC clarified its statement to say that no one but Azam owned and used his share account, disputing the anti-graft agency chief commissioner’s claim that his brother had used it.

The committee’s interest in Azam pertains to ethical concerns such as possible conflict of interest, and breach of civil service regulations, another member, Kota Kinabalu MP Chan Foong Hin, told The Malaysian Insight.

Chan said Azam’s shareholdings must be assessed in the context of civil service rules on owning shares.

Chan said the committee wants to question Azam with regard to the Peraturan-Peraturan Pegawai Awam (Kelakuan Dan Tatatertib) 1993, wherein item 16 states that no officer can involve himself in the commodities or futures market, whether as a buyer or seller, or in any other role, in a local or foreign market.

This regulation also requires public officers to declare all their assets to their heads of department.

Another regulation is the Pekeliling Perkhidmatan 3/2002, where section 23 prohibits civil servants from owning more than RM100,000 worth of shares in any company.

Sungai Buloh MP R. Sivarasa cited this circular when he raised concerns in Parliament about Azam’s shareholdings on December 14 and called for an independent investigation.

“We also wish to raise the issue of why did the SC not report such blatant breach of rules (of civil servants owning excessive shares). If there is no such requirement for reporting, then Parliament may need to legislate or put relevant rules on the matter to require SC to notify the civil service,” Chan said.

The committee was to have met yesterday to discuss Azam’s shareholdings but the meeting was called off by committee chairman, Kuala Krai MP Abdul Latiff Abdul Rahman after he received a letter from Azam warning that the meeting might be in breach of Parliament’s Standing Orders.

Leong, Chan and two other committee members from the opposition have disagreed with Latiff’s move to indefinitely postpone the meeting, saying other matters pertaining to the same issue could be discussed, even if Azam did not attend the meeting.

The shares Azam was said to have owned were 2.15 million in Excel Force MSC Bhd in 2015, as well as the 1.93 million shares in Gets Global Bhd the same year and 1.02 million shares the following year. At this time Azam was the MACC’s director of investigations.

At a press conference on January 5, Azam said the shares were bought by his brother Nasir using his (Azam’s) trading account, and were later transferred to the brother, leaving him with no pecuniary interest.

He also said he informed his superiors at the time about the purchase and they raised no concerns.

Based on his explanation, MACC Anti-Corruption Advisory Board chairman Abu Zahar Ujang “cleared” the chief commissioner of wrongdoing, despite mounting calls for an independent, external investigation.

The next day on January 6, the SC said it would be questioning Azam over potential breach of section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991, which stipulates that every securities account opened with a central depository must be in the name of the beneficial owner of the deposited securities or an authorised nominee.

Two weeks later, the SC gave its “inconclusive” finding, leading to Azam issuing a statement expressing gratitude at being “cleared” of any wrongdoing.

On social media, however, the chief commissioner is being panned for equating the SC’s inconclusive finding with his innocence. – January 20, 2022.