AUGUST 24 — Lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan has reportedly accused the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) of “gross abuse of power” for refusing to allow him to be present with his client Wira Dani Abdul Daim, the eldest son of Tun Daim Zainuddin, during questioning.
The lawyer said Wira Dani appeared at the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya on Thursday (August 22) at 9.30am to provide a statement into an ongoing investigation into Daim, even though no clear allegations have been specified, only to bar Rajesh from attending the questioning.
“The denial of the right to legal advice and representation is in flagrant breach of the constitutional rights of Wira Dani as guaranteed in Article 5(3) Federal Constitution,” Rajesh said in a statement on Friday (August 23).
Early this year, I wrote that the law distinguishes between a suspect or an arrested person and a witness in a criminal investigation.
This is based on the Federal Court decision in Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia & Ors v Latheefa Beebi Koya & Anor [2017] where Federal Court Judge Abu Samah Nordin, who delivered the judgment of the apex court explained Article 5 of the Federal Constitution as follows:
“Article 5(2) of the Constitution speaks of the right of a person who is being unlawfully detained to make a complaint to the High Court. This is a provision where a person claiming to be unlawfully detained, ordinarily applies for a writ of habeas corpus.
“Article 5(3) speaks of a right of an arrested person to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. The [complainant] is a witness and not a suspect or an arrested person or a person ‘unlawfully detained’.”
So, Article 5(2) or 5(3) of the Constitution does not confer any constitutional right on a person to be represented by counsel during the recording of his or her statement as a witness.
Was Wira Dani a witness or suspect?
