POTA violating laws, rights in terrorism fight

April 12, 2015

POTA violating laws, rights in terrorism fight


COMMENT: The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association, and the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak vehemently oppose all forms of detention without trial, and view the passage into law of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (“Pota”) in the early hours of 7 April 2015 with grave concern.

POTA is clearly an attempt by the government to resurrect the Internal Security Act 1960 (“ISA”), Restricted Residence Act 1933, Banishment Act 1959, and Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969.

POTA is objectionable, ignores due process, infringes upon our constitutional rights, and is repugnant to the rule of law.

POTA brings about the re-emergence of detention without trial laws, the limiting or denial of legal representation, and the ouster of the jurisdiction of the courts.

Ill-defined targets

POTA is unclear in its scope inasmuch as it is directed at an ill-defined group of persons. It is purportedly directed at persons who are “engaged in the commission or support of terrorist acts involving listed terrorist organisations in a foreign country or any part of a foreign country”.

However, words like “engaged”, “commission”, “support” and “involving” have not been defined in POTA.  Thus, the reach of the legislation is extremely wide and lends itself to abuse.

It opens up the real possibility that almost anyone could be targeted under POTA. It cannot be conveniently seen as simply targeting “terrorists”.

We have seen how the ISA, which had been meant to deal with the communist insurgency, was used to stifle political dissent and imprison political opponents. POTA gives false hope in the exclusion of “political belief and political activity” as a ground for detention.

Organisations not registered as political parties under the Societies Act 1966, or not registered under the Societies Act 1966 at all, may be subjected to the wide powers of POTA.

We also note that in the past, politicians and political activists had been detained under the ISA for activities that were nonetheless viewed as prejudicial to national security or public order.

We fear POTA will be similarly abused as a tool for political oppression.

Executive taking over judicial powers

The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak are also very troubled by the encroachment into judicial discretion in criminal matters.

POTA, a person can initially be remanded for investigative detention for a maximum of 60 days. A magistrate has no discretion to refuse a request for remand, and is reduced to rubber-stamping requests by the police and Public Prosecutor.

Likewise, a Sessions Court Judge has no discretion to refuse any application by the public prosecutor to order that an accused person be attached with an electronic monitoring device.  Discretionary powers that exist to enable the judiciary to confront the excesses of the executive are now effectively extinguished.

The intrusion on judicial discretion permitted by Pota is serious, as it is tantamount to vesting judicial power in the executive.  We remind the government that under our constitutional scheme, judicial power is vested in the Judiciary, and the vesting of judicial powers in any other body is unconstitutional.

Rights of arrested denied

Further, there is no provision for the person remanded to be informed of the grounds of arrest, nor is there any guarantee that legal representation will be allowed. This is because the police are prone to applying the exclusion under section 28A(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code to deny access to legal representation.

This is another serious matter, as access to legal representation for persons facing serious allegation of terrorism and the prospect of loss of liberty should not be denied.

Pota also confers draconian powers on the inquiry officer – who is not expressly defined in Pota – tasked with investigating the allegations against the accused person and presenting the evidence to the prevention of terrorism board (“POTB”).  In this regard the normal rules of evidence and criminal procedure are excluded, and the inquiry officer may procure evidence by any means.

The inquiry officer then presents his/her report to POTB and there is no provision for POTB to inquire into the report or require further investigation. POTB has extensive powers – it may grant a detention order of up to two years, or a restricted residence order of up to five years.

These periods of detention or restricted residence may be subsequently renewed for an indeterminate period.

These orders are to be made by POTB without due process, inasmuch as the accused person is denied the right to make any legal representation to the POTB.

Secret hearings

Next, the argument that POTA cannot be compared with the ISA because it is no longer the Minister of Home Affairs who decides on the detention or restriction order, is specious.

Members of the POTB are appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (but following convention, upon the advice of the government) and can be dismissed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong at any time.

This absence of security of tenure undermines whatever independence POTB purports to have.  Only the chairman is required to have legal experience, and there is no provision that he or she must be, or must be qualified to be, a judge. We have seen from the practice of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 that the names of the members of the prevention of crime board have not been made public.

It is likely to be no different for members of POTB. The fact that POTB hearings will not be held in public means, in effect, that POTA will allow secret hearings by a secret panel. There will be no transparency.

One of the most offensive aspects of POTA is its absolute ouster of judicial scrutiny. No judicial review of the detention order or the restriction order is possible. This is an affront to the Judiciary and is further contrary to article 8 of the federal constitution, which guarantees equality and equal protection before the law.

The small concession that courts can review procedural compliance is illusory in practice since POTB determines its own procedures.

Violating laws to fight terrorism

The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak take the view that the answer to the fight against terrorism does not lie in oppressive laws that violate our adherence to the rule of law, due process and constitutional safeguards.

The war against terrorism requires the strengthening of our ability to detect, gather evidence, investigate and deal with the threat of terrorism in a holistic manner.  We must eschew shortcuts or quick fixes that seemingly provide short-term solutions but no long-term result.

We are aware of the evolving threat of global terrorism and the efforts by the government to adapt in order to counter it domestically.

We are supportive of these efforts, but maintain that the war on terrorism must be won without compromising the rule of law, human rights and principles of natural justice.

The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak reject this attempt by the government to revive detention without trial, repeated renewals of such detention, the ouster of the jurisdiction of the judiciary, and the limitation or denial of the rights of suspected persons to due process of law.

We urge the government to withdraw POTA from being tabled in the Dewan Negara.

The statement is jointly issued by STEVEN THIRU, president of the Malaysian Bar, GBB NANDY @ GAANESH, president of the Sabah Law Association and LEONARD SHIM of the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak.

MACC on Trial: Let the truth prevail!

April 11, 2015

MACC on Trial: Let the truth prevail!

by Din Merican

Free Malaysia Today (FMT) has been running the story on the Trial of Rosli Dahlan against Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and its officials which link provided below and the story is reproduced below in full:

Witness: MACC can be overzealous, unprofessional

Rosli Dahlan (new)



What is startling to me, and perhaps  to other readers of this blog, is that we first have an ex- Advisory member of the MACC Tan Sri Robert Phang revealing that the MACC is not independent and has been used by the A-G Gani Patail to fix trumped-up charges against Lawyer Rosli Dahlan.

Then we have ex-DPP Shamsul Sulaiman revealing more of A-G Gani Pataiil’s abuses in using the MACC to keep victimising Rosli. The fact that Shamsul was warned to stay away from the case shows the level of fear permeating within the A-G Chambers and the MACC of the A-G’s awesome powers. It became more glaring when ex-DPP Shamsul had to even seek the court’s protection that the evidence he gives in court should not be used to later persecute him. This is  even more worrisome.

It is troubling when witnesses are afraid to tell the truth in court for fear that the A-G would later charge them. Apparently, this had happened to Brig-Gen Dato Yassin when he gave evidence in the Kota Kinabalu Sessions Court before Judge Supang Lian. After giving evidence favoring Dato Ramli, Dato Yassin was charged. Readers will recall that Dato Ramli Yusuff was acquitted after Judge Supang Lian found that then IGP Musa Hassan had lied. Strangely, Musa was not charged for being an incredible witness whose evidence is to be disregarded.

It is scary to see the same scenario unfolding in Rosli’s trial. If witnesses feel intimidated and are fearful for their safety, then they will be afraid to tell the truth. Then the truth will never be known. Is that why we never get to know the truth of who killed Teoh Beng Hock? Is that why we never know who killed Ahmad Sarbaini?

The MACC has to account for these two deaths ‎but until now no one has been brought to book. In Ahmad Sarbaini’s case, the MACC could conveniently erase the CCTV recording of the events and the great Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah dismissed it as just an accidental erasure.

Lawyer Rosli Dahlan was fortunate that he was locked up in the dungeon of the MACC, otherwise he might also have been another dead body thrown off the MACC’s building!

I am worried for Rosli that if this intimidating tactic of the A-G and counsel Tan Sri Cecil Abraham are allowed to continue, then no witnesses will come forward to tell the truth. Then Rosli’s case will fail and we will never get to know of this conspiracy. No wonder, cases of this nature always fail.

I say to the MACC and the A-G, fight fairly. Don’t intimidate witnesses. Don’t frighten them. Let the truth prevail!

Blogger Sakmongkol AK47 asks Mr. Clean Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to stay out of the Altantuya Murder Case

April 11, 2015

Blogger SakmongkolAK47: Mr. Clean Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, stay out of the Altantuya Murder Case

By FMT Reporters@www.freemalaysiatoday.com

Raub MP Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz has made a broad threat about exposing the secrets behind the controversial purchase of two French-built submarines, which has been linked to the murder of Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu eight years ago.

“We will dig out the story when we come to power,” said Ariff, a former UMNO member and one-time Najib Razak aide who joined the DAP in 2012. “Now you know why UMNO is fearful of losing power.”

abdullah badawiHe said a new Pakatan Rakyat-led federal government could also reopen the Altantuya case and order a fresh trial to settle outstanding issues. In a blog article on Friday, Ariff related political gossip that even Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was a “beneficiary of the spoils” of the submarine purchase, but made clear he was only recounting hearsay. “I don’t know about this – people tell me this,” he said.

He warned Abdullah against joining the fight to reopen the Altantuya murder case. Abdullah had said earlier that Najib did not know Altantuya. “People can be rude by asking, what does Pak Lah know?” Ariff said, before advising Abdullah not to get involved.

“Pak Lah is better off staying out of this fight, lest people start digging what he got when Najib took over as PM,” he said. Najib succeeded Abdullah as Prime Minister in 2009, a year after Barisan Nasional suffered humiliating losses to Pakatan Rakyat in the general election the previous year.

Ariff joined the chorus of opposition cries for a new trial into the Altantuya case, in which Najib, his wife Rosmah Mansor, and a Najib associate, Abdul Razak Baginda, have been implicated.

He dismissed Najib’s lack of a clear answer when asked in a television interview on Thursday about his connection to Altantuya, in the face of widespread political gossip that he had had a relationship with the victim through Razak. Ariff said Najib had not answered the question. He merely responded by telling the interviewer that he had taken an Islamic oath in a mosque that he did not know Altantuya.

“I think the answer was meant more for the folks in the villages and in the Malay heartland,” said Ariff and ridiculed the Prime Minister. “If Najib can prove his innocence by way of making the solemn oath, then anyone accused of any crime can avoid going before the civil courts by doing the same. Many wrongdoers will get away easily.”

The best way to solve the issue once and for all was a retrial, he said. “Bring in Musa Safri (a former aide to Najib at the time of the murder and who was implicated but never called to testify), Razak Baginda and others, investigation officers and everyone connected to the brutal slaying.” He said some evidence could be introduced, as well as people never called to testify, and the two policemen eventually convicted and sentenced to death for killing Altantuya.“The retrial can be done – if we have a new government, a properly constituted court,” he said.

One of the two convicted killers, Sirul Azhar Umar, has said that he and co-accused Azilah Hadri were only carrying out orders and had been made the scapegoats while the people responsible got away. Sirul is now being held in an Australian immigration detention centre after he fled there while awaiting a court decision.

His pleas have been taken up by former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad who has called for the case to be reopened and for Najib to answer whether he knew Altantuya.

Rosli Dahlan Vs MACC– Witness: MACC can be overzealous, unprofessional

April 11, 2015

Witness: MACC can be overzealous, unprofessional

Court grants ex-DPP Shamsul Sulaiman immunity from prosecution in lawyer’s suit against MACC.

Rosli DKUALA LUMPUR: Stunning circumstances formed the basis on which former Deputy Public Prosecutor Shamsul Sulaiman gave evidence in court yesterday in the on-going trial of Rosli Dahlan’s suit against the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC) and the Government of Malaysia.The case is being heard before Justice Su Geok Yiam in the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

Addressing his concern that his evidence may be self-incriminatory, Shamsul told the presiding judge, “I am now concerned after testifying in court [that] my statement will be used against me.” Section 132(1) of the Evidence Act, 1950 provides that a witness is not excused from answering questions on the ground that the answers will incriminate him.

The Court, however, exercised its power under Section 132(2) to compel Shamsul to answer, thereby granting him immunity from arrest or prosecution in respect of the content of his evidence.

During his testimony, Shamsul told the Court that Rosli and he were good friends from their days together at the International Islamic University and that the relationship had continued throughout their working careers.

He said that upon being issued with notices to declare his assets, Rosli discussed the matter with him, raising various issues which troubled him about the contents and effect of the notices. Shamsul said that he sought clarification on the notices with DPP Anthony Kevin Morais who issued the notices, and Nordin Hassan the then head of ACA’s prosecution unit.

Kevin Morais

Anthony Kevin Morais (above)

“I was advised to stay away from the case as they were taking orders directly from the Attorney-General,” his witness statement read. “I kept my peace within Chambers from then on, all the while disappointed that senior officers of the organisation which I was serving for so long did not behave in what I thought should be the professional way we ought to.

He went on to testify that two days before Hari Raya in 2007, he received two calls from Rosli. In the first call Rosli informed him that ACA officers had turned up requesting that he accompany them to their office to record a statement.

“He told me that he managed to negotiate with the officers to postpone the recording of the statement….., but at the back of his mind he was concerned and had the feeling that the officers would come back to arrest him.

“A couple of hours later, Rosli called me again in a very short and anxious call to tell me that the ACA officers were back and had announced to his office that they were looking for him to arrest him,” his statement went on.

According to Shamsul, he later found out that Rosli had been arrested that day and made arrangements to be present with Rosli’s wife at the ACA Headquarters that night.

Upon arriving at the ACA office, Shamsul joined Rosli’s wife and two other lawyers, Chetan and Harvey.

We just waited”.

“As we waited, I telephoned DPP Anthony Kevin Morais who told me that the investigators were going to let Rosli go once they finished recording his statement.

“Time passed slowly. As midnight approached we saw officers leaving and we thought our wait would be over soon. The officers left quite hurriedly and it seemed to me that they were avoiding us,” Shamsul testified further.

Calls to enquire went unanswered and security guards at the front desk were unhelpful.“We received no cooperation from them except to be told that we should just leave,” he added.

They eventually did. The next morning, he was surprised to find that Rosli had been brought by ACA to the courtroom via the public corridor instead of through the lock-up lifts system.

Noting that they had opted not to access the courtroom via the complex’s more private passageways as would usually be done in criminal cases, he added, “I have come to learn that the ACA are in the habit of parading the persons whom they prosecute, having tipped off the media who will turn up in full force.”

The next day, on Hari Raya morning, the newspapers carried news of Rosli being charged with large photographs on their front pages.

“I felt outraged at what I thought was unfair timing of (their) action,” he testified.He said that the whole experience had made Rosli a bitter, lethargic and dejected man who had lost confidence in the legal system to the extent of wanting to cease practice.

“Although he spoke well of his firm and partners throughout the ordeal, I sensed the pressure that Rosli’s prosecution had brought on the firm and I thought there almost came a time when [his] firm saw him as a liability,” he added.

Shamsul testified that he was in Court when Rosli was acquitted. The Sessions Court had ruled that he was not Ramli’s associate and was not within the category of persons who were required to declare their assets, he added.

These were the very questions for which Rosli had sought clarification from the ACA in the first place, Shamsul claimed.

Abdul Razak MusaHe said that subsequently, MACC’s Director of Prosecutions Abdul Razak Musa (left) sought his help to contact Rosli discreetly to set up a meeting to explore a possibility of settling Rosli’s suit. A meeting was eventually held between the two in Shamsul’s presence but no deal was struck, he testified.

He said that the prosecution’s appeal against Rosli’s acquittal was eventually withdrawn on the morning of the hearing.

“It was hard to see a close friend suffer at the hands of people whom I consider also friends,” Shamsul said in his Witness Statement.

“MACC can be overzealous to the extent of behaving unprofessionally,” he added.Under cross-examination by MACC’s counsel Cecil Abraham, Shamsul denied that his role in the episode placed him in a position of conflict of interest.

The trial continues.

Repression in Malaysia–The Economist

April 10, 2015

READ This:


Repression in Malaysia

A thuggish government is playing racial politics. Najib Razak should be dressed down

MALAYSIA’S Prime Minister, Najib Razak, paints his country as a model of moderate Islam—a multicultural democracy and a beacon of tolerance. He has spoken of scrapping oppressive British-era laws and nurturing a creative economy. Meanwhile, his spin-doctors explain that their liberal master is the man to vanquish the reactionary forces in his political party, UMNO, which has never been out of power and which is prone to cronyism and political thuggery.Barack Obama, for one, buys this story. He is the first American President since 1966 to have visited Malaysia. And late last year in Hawaii he enjoyed a round on the golf links with Mr Najib. The two men are said to click. The White House gushes about a “growing and warming relationship” between America and Malaysia.

Race to the Bottom

Yet it is time to call Mr Najib out on the widening gulf between spin and substance. On the economic front is a growing scandal over dubious connections and misused funds at a national investment fund, 1MDB, that Mr Najib launched and which is now burdened with $12 billion of debts. Malaysia’s human-rights record is of even greater concern. Three years ago Mr Najib scrapped a notorious colonial law, the Internal Security Act, which allowed indefinite detention without trial. This week he, in effect, reintroduced it. The new Prevention of Terrorism Act allows suspects to be detained indefinitely. Though it is aimed ostensibly at jihadists, lawyers and civic groups are appalled at the law’s sweep.

This fits a pattern. The coalition that Mr Najib leads uses foul as well as fair means to keep the opposition down. In the most recent election, in 2013, it lost the popular vote for the first time. Yet it held on to power thanks to gerrymandered voting districts. Even after that dubious victory, it continued to persecute the charismatic opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, who in February was sentenced to five years on trumped-up charges of sodomy. American criticism was perfunctory.

In the past year growing numbers of activists and opposition figures have been arrested under the Sedition Act, another colonial law aimed originally at advocates of independence. Mr Najib, who once promised to remove it from the statute book, now plans to strengthen it with harsher punishments and a clause forbidding speech that denigrates Islam.

Among those already arrested under the Sedition Act are opponents of hudud, corporal and capital punishments, including stoning to death for adultery, laid down in Islamic law. Hudud does not apply in Malaysia, but Islamists from an opposition party want it introduced in Kelantan state in the north-east. The government does not like the idea but is quietly supporting it in a cynical ploy to widen splits in Pakatan Rakyat, the opposition coalition struggling without Mr Anwar.

By encouraging the Islamists, the government is fanning racial and religious divisions in a majority-Malay (and Muslim) country with large ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian minorities. In 1969 bloody race riots nearly tore Malaysia apart. Playing racial politics could be disastrous in this multiracial country. A better and more enlightened way for Mr Najib to boost UMNO’s prospects would be for him to repair its image with ethnic Chinese and Indians.

Malaysia’s friends should be blunter about this where they have been mealy-mouthed. They should condemn Malaysia’s corruption, its decaying freedoms and its racial politics. They should call for both the Sedition Act and unlimited detention to go. Until matters improve, not only should golf be off the agenda; so too should the Prime Minister’s hoped-for trip to Washington this year.[Full Article below]

Lurch to illiberalism

An Anti-Terror law curtails liberties

Najib rescinds his promises

THREE years ago Najib Razak, Malaysia’s Prime Minister, fulfilled a promise to repeal the Internal Security Act (ISA), a draconian colonial-era law which had long been used to lock up dissenters without trial. In the early hours of April 7 legislators approved a new bill which reinstates some of the old law’s power. The Prevention of Terror Act (POTA) gives a government panel the right to imprison terror suspects for two years, with multiple extensions, or restrict their movements for five years. Critics spy another blow to civil liberties, which were already under siege.

The government argued that the new law was needed to combat a mounting threat from domestic extremists inspired by Islamic State, the militia that occupies large parts of Syria and Iraq. Officials reckon that at least a dozen Malaysians have died abroad fighting for the militants. Police say that since 2013 they have arrested around 90 people suspected of sympathising with them. On April 5th, just hours before Parliament began debating the law, police nabbed 17 people who they said were planning attacks on Kuala Lumpur, the capital, and on Putrajaya, the government seat.

The timing looked suspicious to opponents of the act, which include Pakatan Rakyat, the opposition coalition. Many fewer Malaysians than, for example, Belgians are thought to have travelled to Syria. Nor is Malaysia, a moderately Muslim country, battling provincial Islamic insurgencies of the sort that trouble its neighbours, Thailand and the Philippines. The government has produced no evidence that such sweeping powers are warranted, the International Commission of Jurists, a human-rights group, claims. It laments that only one member of the government’s detention panel need have legal experience. Even without the panel’s consent, police may now hold suspects for up to 60 days.

The big worry is that the law will become a new weapon in a worsening crackdown on opponents of UMNO, Mr Najib’s party, which has ruled Malaysia in coalition since the 1950s but which was nearly unseated in elections held in 2013. In the first three months of this year police arrested 36 people on suspicion of making comments that violated the Sedition Act, another archaic law which is being invoked more frequently than ever. Last month Nurul Izzah, a prominent MP, was arrested on suspicion of sedition after she delivered a speech in Parliament denouncing the imprisonment of her father, Anwar Ibrahim, who leads the opposition. Many think the sodomy charge against him is politically motivated. Other recent detainees include five staff at the Malaysian Insider, a news website, and a cartoonist called Zunar, who faces nine counts of sedition and a prison sentence of up to 43 years.

Mr Najib had promised to roll back the Sedition Act, just as he promised to junk the ISA. Yet while pushing through the new anti-terror rules, his government took the opportunity to table changes to the act which would greatly toughen sentences and forbid speech that denigrates religion.

Both pieces of legislation highlight how far Malaysia has retreated from the reformist policies that Mr Najib espoused during his first term, which ended in 2013. Supporters plead that the Prime Minister is tacking right only to head off leadership challenges from even less palatable parts of his party (on April 2, Mahathir Mohamad, an influential former Prime Minister, renewed his call for Mr Najib to step down). But that is not much comfort to anyone.

Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail interfered in MACC work

April 9, 2015

Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail interfered in MACC work

by Hafiz Yatim@www.malaysiakini.com

Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail barred the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) from stopping its prosecution against lawyer Rosli Dahlan in the ‘Copgate affair’.

TS Robert PhangThis was revealed in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur today by former MACC Corruption Prevention and Consultative panel member Robert Phang, who said this was related to him by MACC Chief Commissioner Abu Kassim Mohamed.

Phang said Abu Kassim told him this during his tenure as a Corruption Prevention and Consultative panel member. He was on the panel from February 24, 2009, till January 27, 2011.

The witness was testifying in the RM50 million suit filed by Rosli against MACC for assault and wrongful detention. Phang said Rosli had sent him a letter dated Nov 11, 2010, concerning a charge brought against him by the MACC in the sessions court in Kuala Lumpur in 2007.

“I raised this with Abu Kassim  who informed me that the MACC had no case against Rosli in the Abu Kassimabove prosecution, but he was prevented by the public prosecutor, who is Attorney-General Gani, from discontinuing with the prosecution.

“This is despite (MACC) being aware that the case would result in an acquittal.

“I believe there has been abuse of power, selective prosecution, abuse of prosecutorial discretion, malicious prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct by Gani in the handling of the case against Rosli,” Phang said in reply to questions by Rosli’s counsel Chethan Jethwani. He also produced a statutory declaration dated August16, 2012, describing the meeting to that effect.

No minutes from the MACC panel

MACC’s lawyer Cecil Abraham, formerly an Operations Review panel member of the MACC, asked Phang why there were no minutes from the panel to prove this. However, Phang maintained that the meeting with Abu Kassim really did take place and he reiterated what the MACC Chief told him.

On Monday, Utusan Malaysia made an apology in open court to Rosli for its defamatory article, after the lawyer filed the RM50 million suit against the MACC and the UMNO-owned daily.

RDahlanRosli (right) was arrested at his office, two days before Hari Raya in 2007, for allegedly not abiding by the MACC’s notice to declare his assets, which he described as vague.

He was handcuffed tightly in front of his partners, and produced in court on the even of Hari Raya, and a newspaper report said the charge against Rosli was related to an investigation into a RM27 million cop.

Rosli claimed that the action against him came after he helped draft the affidavits for former Deputy Home Minister Johari Baharom, former Commercial Crime Investigation Department director Ramli Yusuf and six of his men in the arrest of triad kingpin Goh Cheng Poh.

Goh or Tengku Goh, was caught by Ramli’s men in 2007, following a blitzkrieg by the government against the illegal money laundering syndicate and he was placed under restricted residence in Gua Musang, Kelantan.

Goh filed a habeas corpus application, which was backed by the then Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan. Following the filing of the habeas corpus application, the Attorney-General’s Chambers did not want to draft the affidavit in reply, as required and is normally done, resulting in Rosli to be roped in by Ramli to draft it.

Subsequently, Rosli was charged in the sessions court but was acquitted without his defence being called. Ramli, who the authorities claimed was the “RM27 million cop” was also charged in 2007 but was acquitted.

As a result of this, Rosli and Ramli filed separate suits against Gani for malicious prosecution. Gani tried to strike out the suits, in the High Court and then in the Court of Appeal, and failed both times.

Rosli’s suit against the MACC continues tomorrow before Justice Su Geok Yiam, with a former Deputy Public Prosecutor expected to testify.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,875 other followers