A lawyer acting for Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim said today the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief had acted ultra vires or beyond his powers, when he told the press “there is strong evidence of abuse of power by the Selangor Menteri Besar ” last week.
Sankara Narayanan said there was no provision in the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2008, which allows the MACC to make such statements.
On Friday, MACC chief commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan controversially disclosed there was strong evidence to show that Khalid had misused his powers over the maintenance of his personal car and the distribution of cattle, for slaughter, to mosques at his Bandar Tun Razak parliamentary constituency.
Sankaran said he had written to Ahmad Said to seek an explanation and to state which provisions of the MACC Act empowered him to make the statement.
“My client has respectfully demanded an explanation, within seven days, as to why he made the statement which is damaging, defamatory and clearly ultra vires.”
Sankaran also disputed an explanation by MACC Deputy Commissioner Datuk Abu Kassim Mohamad that his boss was acting within the law, when he made the statement.
Abu Kassim told the press, on Tuesday, that Section 29(4) of the MACC Act allowed officers with the rank of Commissioner to make statements on investigations.
However Sankaran said Section 29(4) of the Act must be read with Section 24(1) which categorically refers to a First Information Report, made by complainants, in the first instance.
“It does not by any conceivable stretch of the imagination refer to a report of the progress or completion of an investigation.”
Sankaran said they would wait for Ahamd Said’s explanation before considering the next course of action.
Meanwhile two separate letters of demand were also sent today, to Mohd Nazree Mohd Yunus from Gerakan Rakyat Anti Korupsi (Gerak Malaysia), which first raised the issue about the cattle and car.
Sankaran said the Non-Government Organisation (NGO) was not a registered body and they could not, under the law, issue letters of demands to all the office bearers.
“Therefore we can only act against the individual who made the defamatory statement.”
He added that Khalid had not broken any laws or misused any of his powers and would defend himself vehemently.
Ahmad Said Hamdan acted beyond his powers