NOV 19 — It is mind boggling that a lawyer said to represent an individual implicated in a video allegedly linked to corruption involving an assemblyman should approach the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) seeking protection and immunity for the individual.
MACC chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki said that the lawyer visited the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya on Oct 30 to provide information on the corruption case.
The lawyer also requested protection and immunity under the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (WPO) to shield the client from investigation and prosecution.
The lawyer should have first read the riot act – that is, the WPO – to the client.
Section 7(1) of WPO confers “whistleblower protection” to a whistleblower for the disclosure of improper conduct to any enforcement agency – the MACC included.
The protection, however, is not absolute. Section 11(1)(a) allows for revocation of the protection if the enforcement agency “is of the opinion, based on its investigation or in the course of its investigation that the whistleblower himself has participated in the improper conduct disclosed”.
“Improper conduct” means any conduct which if proved, constitutes a disciplinary offence or a criminal offence.
Corruption is a criminal offence.
Ask the individual: Did you participate in the offence?
As Azam said in a recent interview with Bernama, a person involved in the offence he seeks to expose is not eligible to apply for whistleblower protection.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
