Umno members are subjected to the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 and de facto law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz said he was misquoted by a reporter who reported him as saying otherwise .

Speaking at Dewan Rakyat today, Nazri spent almost 10 minutes explaining how the interview took place where he was misinterpreted as an 'Umno defender'.

"I was interviewed by a reporter who asked about Section 17 of the ACA 1997 where it is an offence to not report a bribery offered.

"This was related to an officer who resigned after he disclosed in an interview that he was offered a bribe but failed to report it.

"The reporter then said it was unfair because the official did not take the bribe but I told him that under Section 17, it's a punishable offence.

"But we know that ignorance of the law is no defence so it was right that the ACA took action against that official," he said.

Nazri said the reporter pointed out that this meant Umno too had committed an offence because money politics happened and were not reported to ACA.

"So I said we can't extend Section 17 to include internal party disciplinary procedures," he said and proceeded to give an example.

"For example, it is compulsory for a Muslim to pray five times a day but that doesn't mean Jais (Selangor Islamic Religious Department) needs to personally check to see if you pray or not."

Personal view

He said he insisted that the reporter used the word 'organisation' because internal disciplinary procedures are not exclusive to Umno alone.

"Perhaps the reporter pictured as though I said Umno will not take action against its own members. I told him to use the word 'organisation' but he didn't listen to me and still used 'Umno' in his story," he explained.

"I'm not an Umno defender. It is just a view of mine. Of course, Umno members can be investigated by ACA if they are involved in money politics."

"However, I still believe that the Act does not cover certain offences that is punishable under Umno's set of rules."

Nazri's 'Umno members are immune to the corruption laws' remark has drawn widespread criticism.