Morais insists notices to Rosli properly issued
Dismisses trial court’s finding that notices issued under ‘strange circumstances’ based on complaint ‘by a complainant with dubious character’.
Former Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) prosecutor Kevin Anthony Morais made several concessions today in the civil suit taken out by prominent lawyer Rosli Dahlan against MACC, its officers and the Federal Government.
Rosli had been charged in the Sessions Court in October 2007 for allegedly failing to declare his assets pursuant to notices dated July 17, 2007 and August 16, 2007 issued by Morais. He was, however, acquitted in December 2010 without his defence being called.
Morais acknowledged that Sessions Court judge Abu Bakar Katar had rejected the reasons given by him for the issuance of the notice. He also admitted the notices issued to Rosli and Ramli Yusoff were inter-connected and that Judge M Gunalan had found that he had issued the notices “under strange circumstances in that it was based purely on the unsubstantiated and unsupported allegations by a complainant with dubious character having antecedents.”
“I was informed by the prosecutor who handled the case that the judge did not accept my reasons for issuing the notices,” Morais testified during cross-examination, “but I do not agree”.
Morais also conceded that Rosli’s only link to Ramli was because he acted as Ramli’s solicitor but acknowledged that neither Rosli nor his firm had handled any transaction which was the subject of investigation at the time.
Despite these concessions, Morais remained adamant that he still had valid grounds to issue the notices.
Denying that the notices had been issued for improper motives, Morais insisted, “They were issued based on investigations and accordance to the law.”
He added that he had reason to believe that a crime had been committed under Section 11(a) of the then Anti-Corruption Act 1997 based on investigations carried out by investigating officer Saiful Ezral Ariffin.
Section 11(a) provides that any agent who corruptly accepts or obtains any gratification as an inducement or a reward for doing any act in relation to his principal’s affairs or business commits an offence.
Morais claimed that he issued the notices premised on that suspicion.
