Could evidence tampering have led to the ultimate release of former spy chief?
By Charles Hector
FOLLOWING the acquittal of Malaysian former chief spy chief charged with criminal breach of trust involving RM50.4 mil (US$12.1 mil) belonging to the Government, I looked back at the media reports and discovered disturbing facts which raise the possibility of why the prosecution might have stopped the case.
Was it because the evidence obtained in the case was ‘destroyed’ or dissipated when it was in possession of the law enforcers?
Recall that on Feb 18 this year, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) senior officer Shahrum Nizam Baharuddin pleaded guilty at the Sessions Court under Section 403 of the Penal Code for misappropriating and disposing of valuable properties worth US$6.94 mil (about RM29.01 mil).
Well, what happened was that the convicted officer seemed to have ‘stolen’ monies kept in the evidence locker and replaced them with counterfeit notes. Isn’t this shocking?
This raised multiple questions: Did the convicted officer also removed other evidence? Was this done purely for personal benefit or was it on instruction/orders of others?
Must we now look at preservation of evidence obtained? What happened had in fact hampered prosecution of the case which might have found the former chief spy guilty. Shouldn’t the culprit then be given a heavier sentence as it affected the case?
In my frank opinion, a three-year jail term (and two strokes of the cane) was just too lenient – it was an offence of tampering with evidence that affected RM50.4 mil belonging to Malaysian taxpayers.
Has the culprit been terminated from employment – has his pension rights been annulled? Is Malaysia still going to continue paying this ‘thief’ monthly pensions until he dies – and thereafter to his spouse until her death? Being a senior officer, his salary may be high and so does his pension.
The actions of such a senior officer has not only tarnished the image of MACC but also all public officers in Malaysia, not to mention the country’s reputation as a whole. Seriously, a higher deterrent penalty would have been just alongside immediate termination and cancellation of pension.
Did we even recover all the monies – or does he still have millions hidden away for him to enjoy after his release? Will he serve the entire three years or will he be released soon on parole? What happened to the other two suspects arrested? – Aug 15, 2022
Charles Hector is a lawyer and social rights advocate. He is also co-founder of non-governmental organisation (NGO) Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET).
FOLLOWING the acquittal of Malaysian former chief spy chief charged with criminal breach of trust involving RM50.4 mil (US$12.1 mil) belonging to the Government, I looked back at the media reports and discovered disturbing facts which raise the possibility of why the prosecution might have stopped the case.
Was it because the evidence obtained in the case was ‘destroyed’ or dissipated when it was in possession of the law enforcers?
Recall that on Feb 18 this year, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) senior officer Shahrum Nizam Baharuddin pleaded guilty at the Sessions Court under Section 403 of the Penal Code for misappropriating and disposing of valuable properties worth US$6.94 mil (about RM29.01 mil).
Well, what happened was that the convicted officer seemed to have ‘stolen’ monies kept in the evidence locker and replaced them with counterfeit notes. Isn’t this shocking?
This raised multiple questions: Did the convicted officer also removed other evidence? Was this done purely for personal benefit or was it on instruction/orders of others?
Must we now look at preservation of evidence obtained? What happened had in fact hampered prosecution of the case which might have found the former chief spy guilty. Shouldn’t the culprit then be given a heavier sentence as it affected the case?
In my frank opinion, a three-year jail term (and two strokes of the cane) was just too lenient – it was an offence of tampering with evidence that affected RM50.4 mil belonging to Malaysian taxpayers.
Has the culprit been terminated from employment – has his pension rights been annulled? Is Malaysia still going to continue paying this ‘thief’ monthly pensions until he dies – and thereafter to his spouse until her death? Being a senior officer, his salary may be high and so does his pension.
The actions of such a senior officer has not only tarnished the image of MACC but also all public officers in Malaysia, not to mention the country’s reputation as a whole. Seriously, a higher deterrent penalty would have been just alongside immediate termination and cancellation of pension.
Did we even recover all the monies – or does he still have millions hidden away for him to enjoy after his release? Will he serve the entire three years or will he be released soon on parole? What happened to the other two suspects arrested? – Aug 15, 2022
Charles Hector is a lawyer and social rights advocate. He is also co-founder of non-governmental organisation (NGO) Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET).
It seems legitimate questions are always being asked like in this instance.
ReplyDeleteMalaysia, obviously is where cover ups and protection for the elite few has now become the norm.
Another example is the LCS scandal. While the MACC has reportedly completed its investigation and sent the papers to the AGC, nowhere do we note that the key participants namely, Zahid, Najib and Hishammuddin were interviewed.
Perhaps I missed out some information and am mistaken. I hope I am wrong.
And I agree the senior MACC officer should be jailed longer than three years and be dismissed and forfeit his pension and other benefits.
Where are the opposition and NGOs?
Ya, it sounded suspiciously like the case was "thrown" I.e. deliberately sabotaged by people in the system.
ReplyDeleteCould be some aspects of the case were too dangerous to be made public, people in the establishment involved.
Another symptom of Malusia's steady systemic decay.
Ya, it sounded suspiciously like the case was "thrown" I.e. deliberately sabotaged by people in the system.
ReplyDeleteCould be some aspects of the case were too dangerous to be made public, people in the establishment involved.
Another symptom of Malusia's steady systemic decay.