PETALING JAYA: Contradictory statements by the Securities Commission (SC) and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki on the latter’s central depository system (CDS) account give more grounds to initiate further scrutiny of the case.
Prominent lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said while the SC had first said that the outcome of its findings were inconclusive if Azam had breached provisions in the Security Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 (SICDA) by allowing his CDS account to be used by his brother, it said in another statement that the MACC boss had control of his account and “had given instructions to buy, sell and transfer securities from the said account”.
“It is now very clear the latest statement by the SC contradicts Azam’s statement on Jan 5 that his account was used exclusively by his brother Nasir Baki. Azam’s statement is invalid and had no standing in the law.
“Therefore, without wasting any more time, the Attorney-General has to take immediate steps to form a investigations committee to carry out a thorough probe on any possible breach of provisions of the MACC Act, SICDA and internal instructions and directives of the Public Services Department (PSD). At the same time, the Prime Minister and Parliamentary Select Committee must direct the Attorney-General to form a task force as well as instruct Azam to go on leave. If he fails to do so, then the PSD can put him on leave. This is not a political issue. This is an issue of the rule of law which must be obeyed by all especially those entrusted to carry out enforcement duties,“ he said.
Mohamed Haniff said based on the SC’s latest revelation of its investigations into the case, Azam’s claim that his CDS account was used by his brother and he had no interest in the shares his brother had purchased is inaccurate and untrue.
Azam who had earlier this month admitted that his stock holding account was used by his younger brother to purchase company shares worth millions, presumably took the SC’s first statement on Tuesday as clearing him of any wrongdoing and issued a statement to say that he will continue his duties as MACC head.
Under Section 25 (4) of SICDA, it is illegal and against the law to allow a third party borrow one’s share holding account unless authorised by the account holder with the consent of the SC.