MACC starts shooting, as I said earlier
Where the hell did Zakaria get his law degree from? And he boasts about his 33 years in the MACC and yet he does not know something that a first year law student would know.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Well, as I had told you in my article, MACC will fire the second shot after BNM, MACC fired one shot today. And I say ‘one shot’ because expect more shots to come over the next two weeks.
Anyway, you can read what they said in the Malay Mail Online news report below.
The interesting thing, though, is that they got a recently retired MACC officer to do the talking when he no longer works for the MACC and, therefore, technically is not authorised to speak on behalf of the MACC or commit anything on behalf of the MACC.
I mean the MACC is not legally bound by what this man says because he no longer works for the MACC. So, not being bound by any rules, he can say what he likes and would technically not be breaking any of MACC’s rules since he is no longer employed by the MACC.
And then if the MACC does not do what he says they are going to do, or he says they must do, the MACC would be seen as not doing its job. And if the MACC were seen as not doing its job that can only mean there is outside interference in an attempt to cover up a crime.
As I said in my earlier article, this is all about creating a certain perception so that facts no longer matter and only assumptions count.
Anyway, this man, Zakaria Jaafar, goes around and around giving us a lecture on the law that any first-year law student can tell you. The only part of this year one law lecture that was missing was the adage: innocent until proven guilty.
This part of his statement, though, beats it all: “According to what many have said, the receiver is the prime minister, but who is the giver? That’s what we need to find out because the person will be the main witness, but his location overseas will surely prolong the investigation process.”
A man of the law never says: “according to what many have said.” That is very vague and is hearsay and is not admissible in court. Who said it and when was it said? Is that person or persons prepared to testify in court as to where he, she or they got that information from?
Where the hell did Zakaria get his law degree from? And he boasts about his 33 years in the MACC and yet he does not know something that a first year law student would know.
Zakaria then goes around and around talking about this, that and the other regarding the RM2.6 billion. Basically he expounds on the who, why, when, etc. But then the original issue is that the money came from 1MDB. Why does Zakaria not just say that the MACC has already confirmed that the money DID NOT come from 1MDB? Why all this drama and why take us halfway across the world just to say in the end that the money did not come from 1MDB without saying so?
And then Zakaria introduces the subject of SRC International Sdn Bhd, which he says used to be a subsidiary of 1MDB. Now this is where Zakaria tripped up and this is what may hang him in the end. So let us see if he continues to talk or whether he realises he may have opened his mouth too wide and now has a hook stuck in it.
**********************************
(Malay Mail Online) – The nature of the RM2.6 billion deposited into the prime minister’s accounts cannot yet be classified as the investigation is ongoing, a retired Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) senior official said.
In an interview with the mStar news portal, former MACC deputy chief commissioner Datuk Seri Zakaria Jaafar said investigations must determine both the receiver and giver as well as any possible gratification involved before deciding on further action.
“According to what many have said, the receiver is the prime minister, but who is the giver? That’s what we need to find out because the person will be the main witness, but his location overseas will surely prolong the investigation process,” he was quoted saying by the portal.
Zakaria said the probe on the RM2.6 billion will hinge on the evidence provided by the giver of the funds, specifically what the money was intended for.
“But if the giver says the money is for the construction of surau (prayer rooms) or mosques but he also receive gratification from the aid, then only will there be elements of corruption,” he said.
According to Zakaria, who had served 33 years in the MACC, bribes could take various forms such as donations, cash, positions, goods, sex or commissions.
Reportedly saying that the situation would be more difficult if those involved seek to keep it a secret, Zakaria also said that investigators have to trace the documents relating to the RM2.6 billion and find witnesses to verify these, on top of meeting the giver.
Zakaria said that accusations against MACC would not grow if the public understood the challenges it faced, asking them not to hurl allegations against the anti-graft body.
“The public say, just prosecute, what else to investigate, but how to prosecute, it’s not easy, have to find documents, after that have to find people that will talk or witnesses because the document that is found cannot talk and we need verification from the relevant parties,” he was quoted saying.
The MACC previously said the RM2.6 billion is a donation from an unnamed Middle Eastern source and affirmed that its probe into the amount as well as former 1Malaysia Development Bhd subsidiary SRC International Sdn Bhd is still ongoing.
The MACC has said it will ask Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to explain the RM2.6 billion figure, while the latter has previously denied taking public funds for personal gain.
