Malaysian MACC Act's Sect.62 declared unconstitutional will be challenged by prosecution

https://youtu.be/WVAfMQAQgu8

Court of Appeal: Section 62 of MACC Act unconstitutional

PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal has ruled that Section 62 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009 is unconstitutional.

Justice Datuk Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid, who chaired a three-man bench, made the ruling after allowing the appeals by Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and businesswoman Phang Li Koon to declare Section 62 as unconstitutional in their corruption cases.

The panel held that Section 62 was ultra vires when read against Article 5(1) and 8(1) of the Federal Constitution.

Section 62 requires accused persons to disclose their defence statements to the prosecution before the beginning of the trial.

However, Article 5(1) states that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty save in accordance with law, while 8(1) states for equal protection under the law.

“We allow the appeals and set aside the order of the High Court,” said Umi Kalthum, who heard the appeals with Datuk Ahmadi Asnawi and Datuk Abdul Rahman Sebli on Monday.

The Court of Appeal granted DPP Datuk Masri Mohd Daud's oral application to stay the proceedings in the Penang High Court pending the prosecution's appeal over the decision.

On March 7 this year, the High Court dismissed Lim and Phang's application after ruling that Section 62 of the MACC Act was constitutional and valid as it did not impede the accused's right to a fair trial.

Lim pleaded not guilty to charges of corruption in relation to the conversion of land from agricultural to residential and the purchase of a plot of land and bungalow at below-market value on June 30 last year.

Lim was charged with using his position as Chief Minister to gain gratification for himself and his wife, Betty Chew Gek Cheng, by approving the application for conversion of agriculture land to a public housing zone in south-west Penang to a company, Magnificient Emblem Sdn Bhd.

He allegedly committed the offence while chairing the Penang State Planning Committee meeting at the operations room, Level 28, Komtar building here, on July 18, 2014.

The charge under Section 23 of the MACC Act 2009 provides for imprisonment of up to 20 years and a fine of up to five times the sum or value of the bribe, or RM10,000, whichever is higher, upon conviction. Lim faces a second charge of using his position to obtain for himself a plot of land and a bungalow located at No, 25, Jalan Pinhorn, George Town on July 28, 2015 from Phang for RM2.8mil, below market value.

The charge under Section 165 of the Penal Code provides for a jail term of up to two years, or a fine, or both, upon conviction.

Phang pleaded not guilty to abetting Lim in obtaining the bungalow at an undervalued cost.

She allegedly committed the offence at the same place and date.

The charge under Section 109 of the Penal Code read together with Section 165, provides for imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine, or both, upon conviction. - Bernama

MACC will appeal against ruling that Section 62 is unconstitutional

PETALING JAYA: The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) will be appealing the Court of Appeal's ruling that Section 62 of the MACC Act is unconstitutional.

The MACC stated in a statement on Tuesday that its prosecutors would be filing an appeal to the Federal Court "as soon as possible".

"The MACC also wishes to clarify that this decision by the Court of Appeal does not affect the prosecution of Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and businesswoman Phang Li Koon," it said.

On Monday, the Court of Appeal ruled that Section 62 of the MACC Act was ultra vires when read against Article 5(1) and 8(1) of the Federal Constitution, thus deeming it unconstitutional.

Section 62 of the Act requires accused persons to disclose their defence statements to the prosecution before the beginning of the trial.

However, Article 5(1) states that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty save in accordance with law, while Article 8(1) states that all persons are entitled to equal protection under the law.

The ruling was made after allowing the appeals by Lim and Phang to declare Section 62 as unconstitutional in their corruption cases.

Lim currently faces charges for obtaining gratification for himself and his wife related to the conversion of land into residential development and another charge for using his position to purchase a bungalow below market value. Phang has been charged with abetment. - The Star

MACC: ‘Decision has no bearing’

PETALING JAYA: The Court of Appeal’s decision to declare a section of the Malaysian Anti-Corrup­tion Commission (MACC) Act as unconstitutional does not affect the prosecution of the Penang chief minister and a businesswoman, the graft busting body said.

The MACC said in a statement that its pro­secutors would be filing an appeal to the Federal Court “as soon as possible”.

“The MACC also wishes to clarify that this decision by the Court of Appeal does not affect the prosecution of Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and businesswoman Phang Li Koon,” it said.

On Monday, the Court of Appeal ruled that Section 62 of the MACC Act was ultra vires when read against Article 5(1) and 8(1) of the Federal Constitution, thus deeming it unconstitutional. Section 62 requires accused persons to disclose their defence statements to the prosecution before the trial begins.

But Article 5(1) states that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty save in accordance with law, while Article 8(1) states that all persons are entitled to equal protection under the law.

The ruling was made after allowing the appeals by Lim and Phang who sought to declare Section 62 as unconstitutional.

Lim currently faces charges for allegedly obtaining gratification for himself and his wife related to the conversion of land into residential development and another charge for allegedly using his position to purchase a bungalow below market value.

Phang has been charged with abetment.

Related Posts:

Penang signs corruption pledge, faces calls for Chief Minister to step down

https://youtu.be/G3zoOtVh3ns GEORGE TOWN: The Penang government finally inked a corruption-free pledge and almost immediately faced ca...

Critical time for DAP leader, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng

Jul 3, 2016 ... Critical time for DAP leader, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng. Fall from grace: Lim, who is facing two charges of corruption alongside ...

Ethics vital for lawyers! Force to sign documents & hit client?

I REFER to the YouTube clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXGuSf_YARM&sns=fb) showing a lawyer forcing a client to sign documents without reading the contents, shouting at the client, shoving him and kicking him. (See below: Lawyer who hit client claims self-defence)



Any person who encounters poor legal services or suffers detriment has the right to seek remedy.

In Malaysia, action against lawyers lies in the hands of the Disciplinary Board set up under the Legal Profession Act 1976. The Disciplinary Board is independent of the Bar Council, consists of senior lawyers, and is chaired by a judge of the Court of Appeal. It deals with all complaints against lawyers.

The Bar Council is only empowered to deal with cases of misconduct involving dishonesty, which includes cases of cheating and the misappropriation of funds. If the Bar Council receives a complaint involving dishonesty, it can apply for a court injunction to stop the lawyer concerned from practising pending investigations into his case, or apply to the Disciplinary Board for an order of suspension pending such investigations. The Bar Council will also lodge a police report in respect of the complaint if the complainant has not already done so.

The Bar Council regulates the legal profession in this country and it can deny any application to join the profession – based on the “good character” requirement. The meaning of “good character” can be a little bit hazy, but it’s been described as having a strong moral fibre, a belief the law must be upheld, and an appreciation of the difference between right and wrong.

As a regulating body, the Bar Council polices the conduct of lawyers, and disciplines members not only for unethical actions, but also rude or overly aggressive behaviour. Anyone found guilty of professional misconduct shall face suspension.

At university, legal ethics should be viewed as a major subject, to provide students with a thorough grounding of the proper spirit in which lawyers should practise. Honesty should be a crucial part of a lawyer’s education. By the time students begin pupillage, they should already have a good grasp of what makes a good lawyer. This should include knowledge on how to handle clients’ money ethically and the manner in which they are to deal with other lawyers and the courts. Such education should imbue a correct and broad mindset in students and guide them during their pupillage, as they begin to apply the legal knowledge they have acquired in theory to real-life cases.

A word to all legal professionals in Malaysia: respect your clients, the profession, the country and the public interest. Law is an imperfect profession in which success can rarely be achieved without some sacrifice of principle. But we can strive to make it a notable profession that people can respect in this country.

JACK WONG KIN TUNG
Law lecturer, Ipoh

Lawyer who hit client claims self-defence

By SIRA HABIBU  sira@thestar.com.my

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/

PETALING JAYA: A video clip of a house buyer being pushed and kicked by a lawyer has gone viral but the purported attacker says he did it in self-defence after being provoked.

Lawyer Tan Hui Chuan, who was a Selayang municipal councillor until recently, said the house buyer had uttered “hurtful and disrespectful words”.

“I just wanted him to get away from me because he was provoking me, so I pushed him. But I did not punch, scratch or slap him. Yes, I kicked him. But I did not kick to injure him. It was a soft kick,'' he said when contacted yesterday.

The nine-minute video clip shows two men arguing in the presence of three others in an empty house. At one point, one of the men, who is apparently infuriated, pushes the other man and kicks him once. He shoves him several times later.

Gone viral: A still from the video grab purportedly showing the attack.

 

The footage, recorded by a woman who came with the house buyer, was posted on YouTube on June 21, two days after the alleged incident.

The house buyer claimed he was upset that the lawyer “forced” him to sign some documents without giving him time to verify them first.

However, the lawyer said he merely asked his client to sign the acknowledgment of receipt of several documents that had been tendered to the bank.

“It was neither an agreement nor a contract as all transactions had been completed a week earlier. The client has already taken possession of the property,'' he said.

Tan said his client went to his firm several days later and signed the acknowledgement of receipt.
“And the video was released after that,'' he said.

The lawyer felt that the house buyer had tarnished his reputation by releasing the video.

Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee said victims of physical assault could sue for damages, adding that the house buyer could lodge a police report as well.

“No amount of provocation should attract (any form of) physical assault,'' he said.

He also said that in cases of misconduct involving lawyers, the people could lodge a complaint with the council's disciplinary board.

Theng Book offers to mediate

The Star June 10 2012

PETALING JAYA: Selangor MCA Public Services and Complaints Department chief Datuk Theng Book has offered to mediate in the controversy involving a lawyer who is alleged to have assaulted a housebuyer.

He, however, urged lawyer Tan Hui Chuan to apologise to Neo Kian Hua within a week.

“Failing which, Neo can take the necessary action if he wants to,’’ Theng Book told a press conference at the Selangor MCA office here yesterday in the presence of Neo.

The alleged assault happened on June 19 after Tan summoned Neo to the house he had purchased to sign some documents.

A video clip showing an enraged Tan pushing and kicking Neo posted on YouTube went viral.

Tan, who was a Selayang municipal councillor until recently, had clarified that Neo had uttered “hurtful and disrespectful words” and that he had acted after being provoked.

The lawyer also claimed that he had merely asked Neo to sign to acknowledge the receipt of several documents that had been tendered to the bank.

Neo, a 32-year-old IT consultant, said yesterday that he had never met Tan prior to the incident as he had only dealt with his assistant.

“I also felt strange as to why he was calling for a meeting at the house and not his office,’’ said Neo, who added that he decided to get his girlfriend who accompanied him to the meeting to record it.

Neo claimed that Tan lost his cool after he (Neo) began reading through the documents before signing them.

“As I continued to read the documents, Tan grabbed them from me and told me to go to his office to do the signing,’’ he further claimed.

Theng Book advised all housebuyers and vendors to appoint their own lawyers to protect their interests.

“Banks should not recommend lawyers to vendors and buyers,’’ he said.

Related posts:

Lawyer fleeced millions from victims in property scam 

Lawyer to stand trial to settle RM3.9mil claim against land owners

‘Violent lawyer’ may face action 

The Malaysia's court and the PM’s Department

Tweet

The court and the PM’s Department

PUTIK LADA By ANDREW YONG

The separation of powers is a central principle woven into the fabric of our Constitution. And it is essential that the judiciary is not only independent, but also seen to be independent of the other branches of Government.

“MAHKAMAH Jabatan Perdana Menteri”. I have to admit to have been slightly taken aback, to say the least, when I saw these words the other day, embroidered in gold on the black cotton jacket of a member of the court staff at the High Court in Penang. I blinked.

Was I at the wrong court? Had the High Court suddenly been subsumed into the Prime Minister’s Depart­ment? Or was it that the Prime Minister’s Department was now a department of the High Court?

Perhaps I should have understood that cashiers, clerks and other administrative staff at the High Court were civil servants appointed by the executive and assigned to the courts to support the administration of justice.

Perhaps I should have appreciated that in the absence of a dedicated Justice Ministry (which was abolished in 1970), it was only natural that such staff members would come under the Prime Minister’s Depart­ment.

And yet, in spite of every rationalisation that I could think of, I knew, deep down, that the words in gold thread looked wrong, and were plainly inappropriate.

They could not possibly be read by a litigant appearing before the courts without giving him the wrong impression about the relationship between the courts and the head of the executive. And yet some staff manager had ordered those jackets.

Some court staff members were plainly wearing them. And there must have been some judges and registrars who saw them being worn on a day-to-day basis without raising any objection.

The separation of powers is a central principle that was woven into the fabric of our Constitution.

The Alliance submission to the Reid Commission, reflecting the unanimous view of all parties in Malaya, stated that “The Judiciary should be completely independent both of the Executive and the Legislature”.

And for the public to have confidence in the judiciary, it is essential that the judiciary is not only independent, but also seen to be independent of the other branches of government.

Our Merdeka Constitution originally contained admirable safeguards of judicial independence.

Until 1960, Supreme Court judges were appointed by the King upon the recommendation of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission, after consulting the Conference of Rulers, with no input from the executive. Only in the appointment of the Chief Justice was the Prime Minister consulted.

The Merdeka Constitution likewise gave the executive no power to suspend or to constitute tribunals for the removal of judges, such powers being vested in the Judicial and Legal Services Commission, which was chaired by the Chief Justice and consisted mainly of judges or retired judges.



History sadly shows that the amendments of 1960, which vested in the executive the right to select, suspend and to commence removal proceedings against judges, ultimately paved the way for the 1988 constitutional crisis, the darkest days of the Malaysian judiciary, during which Lord President Salleh Abas and two other Supreme Court judges were dismissed by the executive.

Yet, even the Merdeka Constitution did not provide for a perfect separation between the executive and the judiciary.

This shortcoming can best be seen in the Judicial and Legal Service (JLS), which supplies magistrates and subordinate court judges as well as government legal officers.

Unlike in India, where the leaders of independence comprised many people imprisoned by the colonial justice system, and where the independence movement therefore campaigned for a strict separation of the judiciary and the prosecution services, in Malaya there has never been any pressure for such a separation.

To this day, it is normal for a JLS officer to alternate between the subordinate judiciary and the government legal services, and for magistrates and Sessions court judges to be junior in the JLS to Senior Federal Counsel who appear before them.

Lawyers will even tell tales of Sessions court judges standing up and addressing senior government lawyers as “Tuan” when the latter enters the judge’s chambers! This state of affairs is plainly unsatisfactory.

Once a judge is appointed to the High Court, he enjoys security of tenure and cannot be removed except for misbehaviour or disability. Nor can the terms of his employment be altered to his disadvantage.

However, that does not prevent him from being given additional benefits by the executive. The most obvious discretionary benefit today is in the conferment of titles.

In England, every High Court judge is knighted, every Court of Appeal judge is made “The Right Honourable” and every Supreme Court judge without exception gets the title of “Lord” or “Lady”.

But in Malaysia, there is no standard system of titles for judges. A judge who is showered with federal titles will naturally be regarded as being a favourite of the executive, whereas if a senior judge retires without any federal title, it will generally be assumed that he has displeased the executive.

The inconsistent awarding of titles within the gift of the executive is detrimental to public confidence in the independence of the judiciary, and has even led to public scandal.

It is high time that the judiciary, the executive and the legislature take concrete action to improve public confidence in the independence of the judiciary.

The setting up of the Judicial Appointments Commission has been one positive step in recent years. It should be followed by further confidence-building reforms.

> The writer is a young lawyer. Putik Lada, or pepper buds in Malay, captures the spirit and intention of this column – a platform for young lawyers to articulate their views and aspirations about the law, justice and a civil society. For more information about the young lawyers, visit www.malaysianbar.org.my.