What “inconclusive” means by the process of the Law, in layman’s terms

Enforcement of laws is a fair process. Whenever a complaint is made to the Authorities, the Law allows or rather demands the authorities to conduct prior investigations before deciding whether to
press charges against the suspect.

One must remember that when a case is brought to court and charge is preferred against a person, the suspect turns to be an accused and the prosecutor must prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt before an accused becomes a convict.

If the Prosecutor fails to back the charges with documentary, circumstantial or other evidence(s), the case falls and is thrown out of Court at the expense of tax payer’s monies.

The recent allegation of the MACC boss Tan Sri Azam Baki allegedly breaching the Securities Laws raised some eye brows. This short clarification intends to analyze and briefly discuss the process that the Law accords when such an allegation is made or a report lodged.

The Process of Law
The Securities Commission Act 1993 (“SC ACT”) contains provisions empowering the Commission to appoint investigating officers ( Section 125 of SC ACT ) and further Section 128 of the same Act
provides for it to initiate investigations when a report of any breach is made.

In accordance with the SC ACT and based on a complain made against Tan Sri Azam Baki’s alleged breach of Section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories Act 1991, “SICDA”), SC did initiate an investigation on the conduct and came out with a finding as follows;

“The SC has concluded its enquiry and based on the evidence gathered, the SC is not able to conclusively find/show that a breach of securities law under section 25(4) SICDA 1991 has occurred”

In layman’s term what it means is that from the concluded inquiry of the Investigating Committee of the Securities Commission, the Committee has failed to find any proof to conclude a breach has occurred. What is important is to note that the Inquiry had ended. At the end of the inquiry there
exists no evidence to charge Azam Baki for alleged breach of Section 25(4) of SICDA.

It is only natural that when the authorities (in this case the Securities Commission) finds there are no evidence to show any breach, a Charge cannot be preferred against Tans Sri Azam. To add further,
when even at investigation stage it is found to be no basis for an alleged breach, further process of suspecting and prosecuting a person must stop.

Investigation is the crux of any alleged wrongdoing and when there is no such finding of breach, the law cannot be used as a weapon but must be turned to act as a shield to protect the innocent.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: