(1.0) Introduction
The simplest way we can put it about Azam Baki is this;
He had lots of shares in his account which he is not allowed, but put the blame on his own brother for the sudden large amount which is also wrong. That's all goodbye!
Well hold on, is there something more we can see from this premise? Why is he not allowed to have that many shares or why is wrong if his brother used his shares?
To unravel that question, we shall investigate the relevant laws and regulations.
(2.0) Full Story
It was alleged that he bought a number of shares from Gets Global Sdn Bhd and Excel Force MSC Bhd as between 2015-2016 when he was the MACC director of investigations, which was the RM4 million. That RM4 million as according to Edisi Khas posts is divided into Azam who has more than RM1 million, while his brother Nasir had RM3.7 million or more.
He also had around 2,156,000 warrants in Excel Force MSC Bhd back in March 2016, which some commentators suggest that it is linked to the shares issue. Activist Lalitha Kunaratnam and Edisi Siasat on Twitter began spreading information on this issue.
Therefore, it is considered suspicious as to how he managed to gain that many shares in the first place. This later led to a press conference to question Azam Baki on this matter.
The Securities Commission (SC) found that there was no concrete evidence of proxy trading within the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) by their Chief Commissioner, Tan Sri Azam Baki on 19th January 2022. However, Azam Baki somehow did acknowledge he had many shares and pinned the fault on his brother instead that the brother was using it on behalf of his name.
Once he put the blame on his brother, he committed another offence for allowing someone else to use his trading account. In May 2011, the SC compounded a woman for allowing someone to use her central depository system account at Arab-Malaysian Securities Sdn Bhd (now known as AmInvestment Bank bhd) to trade in Newnews Bhd shares.
Previously, the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board on 24th November 2021 as confirmed by Abu Zahar Ujang said that there was no corruption involved and that the shares were used by his brother. He added that the shares were then transferred to Nasir's own trading account later in 2015 or 2016, hence Azam is no longer liable.
The police even confirmed the acknowledgement by Azam Baki that Nasir Baki, the brother used his account to purchase shares in the open market and he does not have any personal interest in them. However, allegations regarding the companies and conglomerates under his control, he denied them.
For some politicians, they question why the internal investigations are carried out by the SC and not some other independent bodies. The public has also called upon a royal commission of inquiry to investigate the matter
(3.0) Legal Analysis
Generally, there could be two laws that had been breached;
Firstly
According to Section 23 Public Service Circular No. 3 of 2002, Azam Baki and the Chief Secretary (Ketua Setiausaha Negara or KSN) as the country's highest civil servant could not have shares exceeding the limit under this law. If the shares exceed, then the accused person would be guilty as under General Orders Chapter D.
Parliamentary Special Committee on Corruption (SCC) chairman Tan Sri Rais Yatim said that civil servants who held ownership of assets, including stock must be declared. The amount that had been capped for civil servants are at RM100,000. Right now, the shares amounts to RM4 million as alleged.
Rais who is also the Dewan Negara president said that the shares bought in 2016 needs to be determined as if it is for a beneficiary or personal ownership. Since it is not declared, we will never know if it exceeds the limit or not.
Section 10 of the Public Officers Regulation (Conduct and Discipline) 1993 requires Azam to declare his shares as Lalitha had said. However, Rais said that Azam would be cooperating with the police on this matter.
The assets does not only include shares, but movable properties such as monies, motor vehicles, jewelleries, firearms, warrants, stocks, bonds and securities as well as immovable property such as land, landed properties and business ownership or directorship.
Secondly
According to section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991 (SICDA or the Act), it states that only securities account opened with a central depository shall be in the name of the beneficial owner or in the name of an authorised nominee.
When read with section 29A of the Act stipulates that all dealings in securities shall be effected only by the beneficial owner of the securities or an authorised nominee. Azam had the share trading account under his name and has the power to buy, sell and transfer securities in the account.
The Securities Commissions found that there was no breach of the Act. Here, someone else who is potentially the brother could have used the shares and it is not allowed as a proxy, despite Azam being the beneficial account holder.
(4.0) Conclusion
To conclude, there should be further investigations made, as all the neutral evidence were only concluded once by the SC and Advisory Board. Several reforms could be made to the MACC and that asset declaration is among the most important component when it comes to tackling corruption and building accountability. As of now, we will never know whether the allegations are true unless judicial authorities would issue a binding decision.
(5.0) References;
Muhammad Yusainy Mohamad Yunus. (January, 2022) Apa kesudahan isu dakwaan terhadap Azam Baki. Retrieved from, https://www.sinarharian.com.my/article/181807/BERITA/Nasional/Apa-kesudahan-isu-dakwaan-terhadap-Azam-Baki
P Ramakrishnan. (January, 2022) Where did Azam Baki get that kind of money? Retrieved from, https://aliran.com/thinking-allowed-online/where-did-azam-baki-get-that-kind-of-money/
MalayMail. (January, 2022) Bukit Aman confirms receiving police report over Azam Baki's shareholding issues. Retrieved from, https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2022/01/08/bukit-aman-confirms-receiving-police-report-over-azam-bakis-shareholding-is/2033856
Mazwin Nik Anis. (January, 2022) Accept SC's decision on Azam Baki share trading issue, says PM. Retrieved from, https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2022/01/19/accept-scs-decision-on-azam-baki-share-trading-issue-says-pm
Tharanya Arumugam. (January, 2022) SCC: Asset declaration issues central in Azam Baki's case. Retrieved from, https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2022/01/763022/scc-asset-declaration-issues-central-azam-bakis-case
A. Kathirasen (January, 2022) Azam Baki controversy: A question of integrity. Retrieved from, https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2022/01/07/azam-baki-controversy-a-question-of-integrity/
theedgemarkets.com (January, 2022) SC says it can't establish SICDA breach in MACC chief Azam Baki's stock trading case. Retrieved from, https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/sc-says-it-cant-establish-sicda-breach-macc-chief-azam-bakis-stock-trading-case
Utusan Malaysia. (January, 2022) DAP selar SC, bagaiman Azam Baki lepas tuduhan SICDA. Retrieved from, https://www.utusan.com.my/terkini/2022/01/dap-selar-sc-bagaimana-azam-baki-lepas-tuduhan-sicda/
BorneoPostOnline. (January, 2022) How the Azam Baki share saga unfolded. Retrieved from, https://www.theborneopost.com/2022/01/14/how-the-azam-baki-share-saga-unfolded/#:~:text=This%20appeared%20to%20show%20Azam,in%20Excel%20Force%20MSC%20Berhad.
Comments
Post a Comment