Whistleblower Act belongs in the bin, going by Azam's reasoning: Lawyer

Summary

• Lawyer Mahajoth Singh criticises MACC for denying protection for his client who blew the whistle on the alleged Sabah corruption scandal.

• He claims MACC and the Attorney-General’s Chambers had misinterpreted the Whistleblower Protection Act when saying his client is not eligible for protection.

• Mahajoth says the decision to prosecute a whistleblower would also send the wrong message to the public.

The Whistleblower Act belongs in a trash can if MACC’s interpretation of the law is accepted, said a lawyer representing the whistleblower in the Sabah corruption scandal.

In a statement, Mahajoth Singh lambasted MACC chief Azam Baki and its prosecution director, Wan Shaharuddin Wan Ladin, for denying his client protection as provided under the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010.

The counsel stressed that his client fits the definition of a whistleblower as per Section 2 of the Act, as he had made disclosures of improper conduct to an enforcement agency.

“There is no ambiguity. My client clearly satisfies these statutory requirements and is, by definition, a whistleblower under the Act.

“MACC’s claim that Section 11(1) of the Act does not accord protection is a fundamental misreading of the law. Section 11 of the Act addresses the revocation of protection - not the granting of it.

“To date, my client has not been accorded any protection under the Act, despite clearly qualifying for it and despite having been led to believe otherwise.

“This raises an obvious question: How can protection be revoked under Section 11 of the Act when it was never granted in the first place?” the lawyer asked.

Mahajoth was responding to media comments made by Azam and Wan Shaharuddin yesterday.

Safe environment for whistleblowers

Azam had said that the whistleblower, who only goes by “Albert”, will be prosecuted after investigations allegedly found his active involvement in corrupt transactions, while the deputy public prosecutor reportedly said reports lodged with malicious intent do not meet the criteria for protection.

Adding further, Mahajoth pointed out that Section 11 of the Act was also discretionary in nature, where MACC can make a judgment call whether to revoke a whistleblower’s protection or otherwise.

He said there is also nothing in the law that mandates the prosecution of a whistleblower.

Instead, he added, the Act was designed to foster a safe environment for whistleblowers to come forward and disclose improper conduct to a law enforcement agency.

According to Mahajoth, the Attorney-General’s Chambers’ decision to prosecute his client was not only legally questionable but also strategically damaging as it sends a message to the public that they may still face criminal charges when they come forward with evidence of corruption.

“MACC’s handling of this case now paints Malaysia as a country that discourages whistleblowers and protects entrenched wrongdoings.

“If MACC’s interpretation of the law is accepted, then the entire purpose of the Act is defeated. In that case, the Act belongs in one place and one place only: the bin,” he said.

Report: Sabah state minister among trio to be charged over alleged graft

MACC: 'Albert' allegedly corrupt, no whistleblower protection

Protecting bribe givers sends wrong message, former exco says

Sabah Umno slams Hajiji as graft case reaches prosecution stage

MACC to charge two Sabah reps, civilian over mining licence scandal

Whistleblower to lodge MACC report against Musa's son-in-law