KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 27): Lawyer Rosli Dahlan said that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has been enlisted to investigate and persecute the political opponents of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
In an affidavit filed at the High Court here earlier, he said that the MACC investigations against him are a form of political attack as he and his law firm had represented former prime minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin in his criminal charges which have been dropped and other court matters.
Rosli accused Anwar of “churning controversies” by attacking the previous Muhyiddin-led government.
“It is evident that the MACC had been enlisted to investigate and persecute the political opponents of [the] PM,” Rosli said using Anwar’s popular monicker for the tenth prime minister of Malaysia.
He said that he is an “apolitical” person, and that Anwar’s political attacks have targeted him because he works closely with Muhyiddin and Bersatu as their lawyer for civil and criminal cases against them.
“The true fact is I am apolitical. I am not a party member of Bersatu, nor of any party,” he said.
He then said that the MACC is an “instrument of oppression against political opponents” and claimed that MACC Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki has a dislike towards him as he acted on a case which implicated Azam.
“In my experience with the MACC, I have found this enforcement agency to be used as an instrument of oppression against political opponents and people perceived to be dissenters or unpopular with the government,” he said.
“The MACC Chief Commissioner, and the MACC's leadership have a dislike for me as I acted for Bersatu in a judicial review, which implicated Azam and senior director of MACC investigation division Datuk Seri Hishamuddin bin Hashim in several wrongdoings,” he said.
Rosli then said that the MACC raid on his law firm on Oct 6 was illegal according to Section 46 of its own MACC Act.
“In attempting to raid the firm on Oct 6, the applicant (MACC) was in violation of Section 46 of the MACC Act. This application made after that wrongful raid confirms the illegality of the raid.
“This application initiated by the applicant under Section 31(1) and 46 of MACC Act is ultra vires [exceeded the power granted to the authorities under law],” Rosli said.
Section 46(1) of the MACC Act states that notwithstanding any other written law, a High Court judge may, on an application made in relation to an investigation into any offence under the Act, order a lawyer to disclose information available to him in respect of any dealing relating to properties liable to seizure under the Act.
He further said that the documents that the MACC was seeking from him in the raid on his law firm were not in the “exclusive possession” of the firm as they had been handed to a new firm.
“Most of these documents originated from and are in the possession and control of 1MDB [1Malaysia Development Bhd] which is part of the Ministry of Finance,” he said.
“When the firm was terminated, most of these documents have also been handed over to 1MDB's newsolicitor Messrs Lim Chee Wee Partnership.
“The fact that MACC did not attempt nor exhaust all efforts to obtain these privileged documents from 1MDB and/or Messrs Lim Chee Wee Partnership suggests a sinister motive to embarrass the firm and I and to make us scapegoats in the public controversy that the MACC had generated,” he said, calling this a “fishing expedition” from the MACC.
After the raids, the MACC had taken Rosli’s law firm Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership, and lawyer Chetan Jethwani and his firm Chetan Jethwani & Company and other respondents to court to compel them to produce documents linked to a settlement agreement between Goldman Sachs and AmBank in relation to the 1MDB scandal.
The MACC said that it was seeking the documents under the firms' "custody, care and control" to aid in the agency's investigations on allegations that Rosli and Chetan were involved in bribery and money laundering regarding Goldman's US$3.9 billion (RM18.5 billion) and AmBank's RM2.83 billion settlement with the Malaysian government over 1MDB.
The MACC also said that, among others, the documents were needed to determine if the respondents had colluded with Goldman and others in reducing the compensation amount or "asset recovery" in the Goldman settlement and to identify the money flow and "layering" from Goldman's account to accounts of the firms.
The applications were accompanied with certificates of urgency.