The MACC sold out the whistleblowers and exposed them to risk

On 2nd August 2010, the lawyers for MAS wrote to the MACC to complain about them revealing the identity of the whistleblowers. The MACC refused to investigate the report lodged with them and instead sent the case back to the police (PDRM) — who had already declared the case NFA — whereas the report made to the MACC clearly stated that there is collusion between the police and the AG Chambers. This act by the MACC has exposed the whistleblowers to great risk.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

TRANSLATION OF THE LETTER BELOW

Re : Report by MAS Against Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli & Ors; MACC IPJ Report No. 119-2009 

We respectfully refer to your letter dated 22nd July 2010 regarding the above report by our clients, MAS.

On behalf of MAS, we express disappointment with your reply and action for the following reasons :-

(a)        The 2 Police reports No. 347/02 dated 04/01/2002 and No. 12532/05 dated 04/05/2005 was made by MAS against Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli and officers who conspired with him (please refer to Annexure 12) and

(b)        MACC Report No: 119/2009 is against the Commercial Crimes Investigations Department of Polis Diraja Malaysia (CCID PDRM), the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) and Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli where MAS considers there has been corrupt involvement or abuse of powers resulting in the case against Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli to be dealt with in a lackadaisical manner (please refer to Annexure 3B at paragraphs 8, 9, 11, and 12);

(c)        Your action in referring the report back to CCID PDRM has caused alarm and distress to our clients as your action has exposed our clients’ report to the parties against whom the report was made;

(d)        Your action is wholly inconsistent and is in violation of the provisions of s.29(4) and s.65(2) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 as it is evident that CCID PDRM is one of the parties being complained against and they should not have access to the details of the report made by our clients against them.

MAS and its officers involved in this matter request assurance from you that there would be no retaliatory actions taken against them as a result of the disclosures made by you to CCID PDRM whereas it was our clients’ hope that you would at least have investigated their complaint or action to be taken against the parties that have been identified in the report.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Nadia Marni Mat Zin