‘PPO has no authority to review Bala’s SD’
Does the Corruption Prevention Advisory Board (LPPR) have powers to override decisions made by MACC and the Public Prosecutor?
Alyaa Azhar, FMT
Former KL CID chief Mat Zain Ibrahim has questioned the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) operations evaluation panel’s (PPO) authority to review its governing decision involving investigations into P Balasubramaniam’s second statutory declaration (SD) or any other matters.
Mat Zain has also similarly questioned the PPO’s power to review the Public Prosecutor’s (PP) decisions.
PPO chairman Hadenan Abdul Jalil had recently announced that the case involving carpet trader Deepak Jaikishan was discussed during the PPO pre-meeting on Nov 8.
But Mat Zain said today that Hadenan had no authority to review decisions made by MACC and the PP.
His argument was based on a personal case in which he had appealed to the MACC advisory board to review a decision with regards to an investigation into a police report made by Anwar Ibrahim on July 1 2008. Anwar had accused Abdul Gani Patail, Musa Hassan, Abdul Rahman Yusof and himself for falsifying evidence in the investigation of the “black eye” incident.
Mat Zain said on July 23 2009, he received an official letter from Abdul Hamid Mohamad, the chairman of Corruption Prevention Advisory Board (LPPR), a MACC panel which is above the PPO. The letter he said was also copied to Hadenan.
In the letter Abdul Hamid stated: “LPPR’s jurisdiction as provided by MACC Act Section 13 (Act 694) DOES NOT include reviewing any decision made by MACC and the Public Prosecutor in any particular case.”
Said Mat Zain: “If LPPR realised (then) that it did not have the authority to review decisions made by MACC and the Public Prosecutor, why did LPPR discuss in great detail my appeal on three occasions, on April 20, June 15 and June 25 2009?
“I can only conclude that the answer given was to cover up the criminal misconduct made by Gani Patail and Musa Hassan so that they would not face legal punishment.”
Bearing this in mind, Mat Zain questioned how Hadenan and his PPO could now review a MACC’s decision regarding Balasubramaniam’s second SD, when Abdul Hamid himself confirmed that the LPPR had no authority.
“There is no difference in whether Hadenan agrees or not with MACC’s decision because the PPO does not have authority to review cases, as confirmed by Abdul Hamid.
“If there really is a new law which enables PPO to review cases, then I want to make another appeal to LPPR to review the case on Gani and Musa which has been distorted,” he said
