LETTERS: Enforcement of laws is a fair process. Whenever a complaint is made to the authorities, the law demands the authorities to conduct prior investigations before deciding whether to press charges against the suspect.
One must remember that when a case is brought to court and a charge is preferred against a person, the suspect turns to be an accused and the prosecutor must prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt before an accused becomes a convict.
If the prosecutor fails to back the charges with documentary, circumstantial or other evidence(s), the case falls and is thrown out of court at the expense of taxpayer's monies.
The recent allegation of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Chief, Tan Sri Azam Baki, allegedly breaching the Securities Laws raised eyebrows.
The Securities Commission Act 1993 (SC ACT) contains provisions empowering the commission to appoint investigating officers (Section 125 of SC ACT) and further Section 128 of the same Act provides for it to initiate investigations when a report of any breach is made.
In accordance with the SC ACT and based on a complaint made against Azam's alleged breach of Section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories Act 1991, SICDA), SC did initiate an investigation on the conduct and came out with a finding as follows;
"The SC has concluded its enquiry and based on the evidence gathered, the SC is not able to conclusively find/show that a breach of securities law under section 25(4) SICDA 1991 has occurred."
In layman's terms, what it means is that from the concluded inquiry of the Investigating Committee of the Securities Commission, it has failed to find any proof to conclude a breach has occurred.
What is important is to note that the inquiry had ended. At the end of the inquiry, there exists no evidence to charge Azam for alleged breach of Section 25(4) of SICDA.
It is only natural that when the authorities (in this case the Securities Commission) finds there is no evidence to show any breach, a charge cannot be preferred against Azam.
So, further process of suspecting and prosecuting a person must stop.
Investigation is the crux of any alleged wrongdoing and when there is no such finding of breach, the law cannot be used as a weapon but must be turned to act as a shield to protect the innocent.
AL SABRI AHMAD KABRI
Advocate & Solicitor
High Court of Malaya
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times
