Dewan Rakyat chairman says summoning Azam Baki to appear before select committee was not a request


PETALING JAYA: Dewan Rakyat Chairman Datuk Azhar Azizan Harun disagrees with Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki’s statement that his refusal to appear before the special committee on agencies under the Prime Minister’s Department was merely an invitation. and not a subpoena.

“I read online that Azam said he was not subpoenaed but only invited.

“I don’t agree with this, I absolutely disagree with this statement,” Azhar said while answering a question posed by Khoo Poay Tiong (PH – Kota Melaka) to Dewan Rakyat on Tuesday, March 1. .

Khoo had sought Azhar’s opinion on whether he agreed with Azam’s statement about his refusal to appear before the Committee.

Azhar said he disagreed with this statement as he cited the Dewan Rakyat Standing Order’s 83(2) procedure.

He said that 83(2) which mentions “summoned” is akin to an individual “subpoenaed”.

He added that the term “subpoenaed” is simply used in court.

“If a person is summoned, it can be by letter and the letter can be clearly stated firmly or softly.

“If the chair’s letter is clear, the person who is summoned, invited or required to attend must appear (before the committee) as under s. 83(2), that is clear,” he said. .

Earlier, Azam said he did not appear before the Committee as it was an invitation for him to attend the meeting and not a subpoena.

Azam had said that if it was a subpoena he would have attended because as a police officer he knew the law and would follow it.

However, Azhar said that the question of whether Azam did not want to appear before the Committee did not arise because the meeting had been postponed and the date had remained vacant for the time being because the Chairman of the Committee had also requested legal advice as Azam. had written a letter to raise related legal issues.

He added that since no date had been released for the meeting, the question of Azam not appearing before the Committee had not arisen.

Azhar also pointed out that he did not have the power to compel an individual to appear before the Committee under 83(2).

Previous Hockey agent Walsh is enjoying his role with a new podcast
Next Fire-Boltt Ninja Call 2 launched with 27 sports modes, over 200 watch faces