The Malaysian Insight

THE Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s image will take a beating if it does not find its witnesses quickly and build a strong case against those implicated in providing protection to illegal massage parlours and gambling dens in Malacca, a lawyer said.

Lawyer Syahredzan Johan said the failure to locate the missing witnesses may dent MACC’s case against the suspects and this could result in the anti-graft commission being accused of protecting someone.

“There will be public perception they will have to deal with. Rightly or wrongly, the public will think something is not right.

“And this is especially so after allegations that one of those arrested in that swoop is linked to the top cop. The public will think that the MACC is trying to protect someone,” Shahredzan told The Malaysian Insight.

MACC chief commissioner Dzulkifli Ahmad announced recently that several witnesses in the Malacca protection racket case have gone into hiding or have left the country.

The anti-graft body arrested Melaka Tengah and Jasin district police chiefs along with several senior officers from the district and state police headquarters.

Also detained was a civilian named “Gopi” whom whistleblower site Sarawak Report alleged had direct phone contact with Inspector-General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar and several other senior police officers. Khalid admitted that he knew Gopi and that the suspect had also visited his home.

So far, no one has been charged.

Syahredzan said even if the statements of the witnesses had been recorded, it would remain just a statement and could not be tendered in court as witnesses were required to be present, unless they were dead.

“Or the MACC needs to find solid evidence that does not need the witnesses to be present,” he told The Malaysian Insight.

“Witnesses are not like suspects. They can move freely. Unless you arrest that person and release him on police bail. Then they are subjected to the law.” 

Syahredzan said although the authorities could use the Witness Protection Act 2009, it iwas up to the witnesses if they wanted to be put in that programme.

“Some genuinely fear for their safety, while others do not want to get involved. You cannot force people to be in the programme,” he said. 

Another lawyer, Eric Paulsen, said the witnesses may have gone into hiding or moved abroad as they were worried for their safety and of their families’.

Paulsen also agreed that witnesses were free to move around and were not bound by restrictions.

“They can move freely. They can go overseas if they want to. Barring them from leaving would be illegal,” he said.

“The act of being a witness is also voluntary. They cannot be forced to become one,” said Paulsen. – June 21, 2017.