PUTRAJAYA – The Court of Appeal today overturned a decision made by the Temerloh High Court that barred the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) officers from using the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to remand suspects for further investigations.
Instead, the court’s three-man bench comprising justices Datuk Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, Datuk Azman Abdullah, and Datuk Azmi Ariffin allowed the MACC’s appeal to set aside the decision of the then judicial commissioner Roslan Mat Nor (now a high court judge) that the commission must rely on its own MACC Act 2009 to apply for remand of suspects after its investigation did not complete within 24 hours after the arrest of the suspects.
In delivering the court’s unanimous decision, justice Vazeer said the then judicial commissioner had erred in his interpretation of Section 49 of the MACC Act.
“We note there is no specific provision in the MACC Act as to the course of an investigation that is not completed within 24 hours,” he said.
He said MACC officers can use Section 29 (3) of the MACC Act and apply to the magistrate for a remand order against the suspects under Section 117 of the CPC if their investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours after the arrest of the suspects.
In his grounds of judgement dated May 11 this year, justice Roslan ruled that MACC cannot use CPC to remand suspects for further investigations and that the commission must use Section 49 of the MACC Act 2009, which gives the commission the specific powers to do so.
He said MACC officers can make an arrest under Section 49 (2) of the MACC Act and can ask for a remand order under Section 49 (3) of the same Act.
Justice Roslan, in exercising his revisionary power, ruled that the remand order issued by a senior assistant registrar of the Temerloh High Court against six policemen, including an inspector, under Section 117 of the CPC did not comply with the law and hence, set aside the remand order.
Deputy public prosecutor Datuk Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar, appearing for the MACC, argued today that justice Roslan had erred when he decided that Section 49 of the MACC Act is the sole provision that the MACC officers should rely on for the investigation and remand of suspects.
He said that the provisions under the MACC Act and the CPC were applicable for any investigation carried out against suspects for offences under the MACC Act.
Lawyer Datuk Geetham Ram, representing three of the policemen, countered by saying that the policemen were arrested for an offence allegedly committed under the MACC Act, and as such, the provisions of the MACC Act apply to the case and not the provisions under the CPC.
As for the other three policemen, lawyers Revin Kumar Shasai Kumar, Lavanyia Raja and Eu Kah Mun were appointed individually to represent them. – August 15, 2023