Azam S Conduct Not Judged By Competent Authority

---

 


Sometimes, seeing photographs and reports in newspapers rekindles events and happenings of the past, many of which would have been consigned to the archives to gather dust in a steel cabinet.
But if you followed an issue, such reports provide the spur to pursue it further. A photograph of two characters in the fight against corruption together last week provided that spark.
It was not too long ago that the chairperson of the parliamentary Special Committee on Corruption, Rais Yatim, was at odds with the views of Abu Zahar Ujang who chairs the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board.
While Abu Zahar was adamant in exonerating MACC chief Azam Baki (above) on his share trading and related matters, Rais said the view was that Azam should go on leave while the authorities are investigating his corporate share ownership.
“In this matter, the facts surrounding (the case involving) Azam is not criminal or not a criminal act, but perhaps (a matter) of misconduct or not carrying out his duties,” Rais was then quoted as saying.
This was in January when Azam was making the headlines for the wrong reasons which were followed by street protests demanding that he step down.
The saga began in October last year when a news portal and a whistleblower site accused Azam of misconduct.
The issue grew two months later when Prof Edmund Terence Gomez resigned from MACC’s Consultation and Corruption Prevention Panel citing inaction over the allegations and over claims the issue was swept under the carpet.
Gomez said his three letters to panel chairperson Borhan Dollah and Abu Zahar failed to elicit any response.
Brother or not brother
Following the furore caused by Gomez’s resignation, Azam initially claimed that he allowed his brother to trade shares in his name but the Securities Commission (SC) subsequently clarified he carried out trades in his own name.
Professor Edmund Terence GomezThis was a contradiction of what Azam said previously but if you thought an indictment of Azam’s conduct was forthcoming, it never did.
On the contrary, de facto Law Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar appeared to downplay the share ownership of Azam.
“The issue which was disputed by the opposition parties has been resolved. An inquiry by the SC decided that there is no case (against Azam).
“The SC found there was ‘no conclusive evidence’ that Azam had breached the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 (Sicda),” said Wan Junaidi in a written parliamentary reply.
Even Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob joined the chorus citing the decision by SC on Azam’s trading account should be accepted by all parties.
“The SC has made a decision… (this matter) was left to the SC as it involves the purchase of shares. So the SC has made a decision and it says there is no case against him (Azam). So, we accept the SC’s decision,” Malaysiakini quoted him as saying.
Really, Mr Prime Minister? The SC merely stated that he traded on his own account and did not nominate his brother as originally claimed by Azam.
How could it be resolved as government regulations had been breached?
The SC’s decision just states that Azam traded in his own name – nothing more, nothing less. Are we, law-abiding citizens, supposed to shut up?
Asset declaration
What about the requirements under Section 10 of the Public Officers Regulation (Conduct and Discipline) 1993?
The section states that all public servants must declare both movable properties, such as money in bank accounts, motor vehicles, jewellery, firearms, shares, warrants, stocks, bonds, and securities, as well as immovable properties, such as land, landed properties, and of course, business ownerships or directorships.
Did Azam, who was the MACC investigation director when he bought the shares in 2015, not breach government rules when he spent more than RM100,000 for the share purchase?
Last week, Azam made headlines again drawing flak from the legal fraternity and politicians for announcing the MACC has opened investigation papers on a judge of the Court of Appeal.
On Wednesday, Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said the judiciary should not be open to unfounded and scurrilous attacks.
She said although judges are not immune to criticism, recent accusations against judges and the judiciary, in her view, went overboard.
Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan MatAs if as an act of defiance, today, the MACC read the Riot Act to those who criticised its action by issuing a statement reiterating it has powers to investigate anyone – including judges.
In a statement, it said: “MACC is vested with the power to investigate corruption offences under the MACC Act 2009, including to carry out investigation against 'public body officers' which in Section 3 of the act are interpreted as any individual who is a member, officer, employee, or anyone who serves a public body, and they include members of the administration, MPs, member of a state legislative assembly, High Court judge, Court of Appeal judge, or Federal Court judge, and anyone who receives a salary from a public body...”
But does MACC have the moral rectitude to make such statements when the conduct of its own head honcho continues to be clouded by his false statements to the public and breaching civil service regulations?
Unless he is ready to subject himself to an inquiry and be cleared by a competent authority, say the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission, anything he says or does will be viewed with contempt and suspicion. - Mkini
R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist and writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: [email protected]
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---