The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has urged the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) to remove Mohd Nadzri Ibrahim, its sole investigator, from investigating death-in-custody cases.

This is MACC’s response to the query by two DAP MPs, Zairil Khir Johari (Bukit Bendera) and Steven Sim Chee Keong (Bukit Mertajam) whether EAIC’s integrity would be in doubt if Mohd Nadzri was the MACC officer who was part of the MACC probe causing the mysterious death of DAP aide Teoh Beng Hock at Selangor MACC headquarters in Shah Alam on July 16, 2009.

A MACC statement issued late last night said:

“SPRM does not want any SPRM officers linked to any controversies, whether it involves SPRM itself or the EAIC.

“In this matter, SPRM wishes to stress that Mohd Nadzri Ibrahim, an SPRM officer who was seconded to the EAIC since more than a year ago, is an officer who has always conducted his duties professionally.

“Like SPRM, SPRM is confident that the EAIC, which is an independent commission, would also want to ensure justice for all parties involved in the issue of deaths in custody.”

This is meaningless bureaucratic gobbledygook designed to confuse rather than to illuminate the public, just because the government agency concerned has got embarrassing things to hide from the people.

Stripped of all its gobbledygook, the MACC statement is an admission that Mohd Nadzri, seconded from MACC to EAIC, was implicated in mysterious circumstances resulting in the death of Teoh Beng Hock at MACC headquarters nearly four years ago, but the MACC does not want to whole sordid tale to be re-opened and this is why the MACC is asking the EAIC to remove Nadzri from death-in-custody cases.

It is no business of MACC to make such a request, for it has neither powers nor jurisdiction to dictate to EAIC what its sole investigator, even seconded from MACC, should investigate or not.

This problem is not whether the EAIC investigator should investigate death-in-custody cases but that Nadzri should not have been seconded from MACC to EAIC to be chief investigator in the first place.

In fact, MACC should explain why no disciplinary action had been taken against Mohd Nadzri when Teoh Beng Hock (TBH) Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) Report made adverse comments about Nadzri’s credibility and integrity as well as role in Beng Hock’s mysterious death.
The TBH RCI Report, in Para 119, pronounced its finding on Teoh Beng Hock’s death, as follows:

“119. Having considered all the evidence in its entirety, we found that TBH was driven to commit suicide by the aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous interrogation to which he was subjected by certain officers of the MACC who were involved in the ongoing operation by the Selangor MACC on the night of the 15th and into the morning of the 16th.”

Malaysians of course cannot accept the RCI’s verdict of “forced suicide” as the cause of TBH’s death.

Clearly MACC officers were responsible for his death at MACC headquarters at Shah Alam on July 16, 2009 through “aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous interrogation” – leaving to everybody’s imagination of the unlawful and even lawless torture Beng Hock was subjected to when he was entirely at the mercy of the “oppressive and unscrupulous” MACC officers for 12 hours on those fateful hours on the night of July 15 and the early hours of July 16, 2009.

Although the TBH RCI report failed to clearly and unmistakably pinpoint the MACC officers responsible for Beng Hock’s death, it is clear from the report that the commissioners came to the conclusion that MACC officers were responsible for Beng Hock’s death.

This is evident from two paragraphs in the TBH RCI report referring to the testimony of one MACC officer Raymond who had testified that he saw Beng Hock at 6 am on the 16th July 2009 “lying on the sofa outside Nadzri’s room”.

Expressing “grave reservations” over Raymond’s evidence, the TBH RCI said (Para 198):

“In our opinion, he was not a reliable witness and was used by those responsible for TBN’s death to distance them from their wrongdoings by creating an impression that TBH was not only alive at 6am on the 16th but was also resting comfortably and peacefully on the sofa outside Nadzri’s room.”

In Para 201, the TBH RCI said:

“ As it become obvious to us that Raymond’s evidence was tailored to fit certain objectives which in this case dovetailed those of the MACC officers responsible for TBH’s death, we rejected his evidence as being unworthy of any weight or consideration in respect of the time he claimed to have seen TBH at 6am on the 16th.”

Nadzri was one of the MACC officers suspected of causing TBH’s death at the MACC headquarters in Shah Alam on July 16, 2009.

The TBH RCI Report contained caustic comments about Nadzri’s professionalism, credibility and integrity.

For instance, the TBH RCI Report reprimanded Nadzri for raising his voice when interrogating TBH in the early hours of July 16 (“Third Interrogation”), castigating Nadzri’s conduct as “rather unnecessary and uncalled for”, that Nadzri “should have been more professional in his approach”, and Nadzri’s treatment of Beng Hock “certainly unwarranted” – “unless there was an agenda to put pressure on TBH by continuing to record his statement in these circumstances.” [Para 53]

The TBH RCI even asked whether Nadzri “had deliberately prolonged this process ( the two-hour “Third Interrogation”) to torture TBH mentally and disorient him to agree to turn against his boss out of despair” [Para 160], and condemning Nadzri’s interrogation “not only duplicitious of work but contravenes sections 30 (1)(a) and 30(8) of the MACC Act”.

In these circumstances, with the approach of Beng Hock’s fourth death anniversary with the cause of his death at the MACC headquarters in Shah Alam remaining an indictment of the institutional injustice of the country, Malaysians are entitled to a full account as to what the MACC had done to punish Nadzri and other MACC officers responsible for Beng Hock’s death by their unlawful abuses of power.