Nothing shocking about he who reports ending up being charged for an offence — Hafiz Hassan
JUNE 20 — Section 11(1)(a) of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (Act 711) says that an enforcement agency (EA) 'shall revoke' a whistleblower protection if EA is of the opinion, based on its investigation or in the course of its investigation that the whistleblower himself has participated in the improper conduct disclosed in his report to the EA.
The word 'shall' means must; there is no discretion.
Some reformists have called for, among others, that 'shall' be substituted with 'may' to allow for discretion in the EA to allow whistleblower protection in genuine cases where a whistleblower is remorseful and has repented his participation in the improper conduct.
Be that as it may, the EA 'shall give a written notice to that effect to the whistleblower' — Section 11(2).
Aggrieved by the decision of the EA, the whistleblower may refer the decision to the court for determination — Section 11(3).
The court may make an order for the preservation of the whistleblower protection and may also make such consequential orders necessary to give effect to the order for relief — Section 11(4).
Section 11(1)(a) of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (Act 711) says that an enforcement agency (EA) 'shall revoke' a whistleblower protection if EA is of the opinion, based on its investigation or in the course of its investigation that the whistleblower himself has participated in the improper conduct disclosed in his report to the EA. — Pexels pic
There is no carte blanche protection, yet there is redress for the decision to revoke protection.
Accordingly, there is nothing shocking if a whistleblower who has co-operated with authorities is later informed he would be charged in court on June 30.
In any case, as I had written in December 2022, he who makes a report can be investigated, and charged if the investigation reveals an offence committed by him.
Such a course of action is not prohibited by Section 107(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) which deals with information relating to the commission of an offence. It does not in any way prescribe the persons to be charged following the investigation.
Following investigation, the person who makes a report can himself be charged if the investigation reveals an offence committed by him.
Nothing shocking about he who reports ending up being charged for an offence.
*This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
27 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
KL man pleads not guilty to 11 charges over obscene posts on Nurul Izzah
SEPANG, June 20 — A diver and single father pleaded not guilty in the Sessions Court here today to 11 charges of making indecent and excessively obscene comments targeting Nurul Izzah Anwar, the daughter of the Prime Minister, on Facebook earlier this year. The accused, Ruslan Mat Ali, 48, entered the plea after the charges were read before Judge Ahmad Fuad Othman. He is accused of knowingly making and initiating the transmission of indecent and excessively obscene comments with the intent to annoy others, on the Facebook account under his name, Ruslan Mat Ali, allegedly committed between January 21 and February 25. He was charged under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, which provides for a fine not exceeding RM50,000, or imprisonment for up to one year, or both, upon conviction. According to the first charge, the indecent post was accessed on February 4 at approximately 7.00am at MCMC Tower 1, Jalan Impact, Cyber 6, Cyberjaya. For the second to eleventh charges, the posts were accessed on February 26, between 1.51pm and 4.30pm, at the MCMC Centre of Excellence, Jalan Impact, Cyber 6, Cyberjaya. Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) deputy public prosecutor Fadhli Ab Wahab proposed that bail be set at RM15,000 with one surety. However, the accused, who was unrepresented, appealed for a lower amount, citing the absence of a fixed income and the responsibility of supporting his three children. Judge Ahmad Fuad Othman set bail at RM10,000, with case mention fixed for July 18. The accused failed to post bail and has been remanded until the next mention date. — Bernama
Malay Mail
2 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Kuching driver remanded three days after flashing airsoft gun at traffic light, tested positive for drugs
KUCHING, June 20 — A 22-year-old male motorist who was arrested after he flashed an airsoft at a traffic light intersection here yesterday has been remanded for three days until June 23. Kuching police chief ACP Alexson Naga Chabu revealed that preliminary investigations found the suspect, who has two prior criminal records, positive for drug abuse. 'The suspect has admitted to be involved in the case and it is also confirmed that the object held by the suspect yesterday was a fake gun. 'The case is being investigated under Section 36(1) of the Arms Act 1960 and Section 506 of the Penal Code,' Alexson said in a statement. Videos and photos of the man brandishing the airsoft gun went viral on social media yesterday. Sarawak police commissioner Datuk Mancha Ata had confirmed the suspect's arrest when contacted by The Borneo Post. Airsoft guns are replica firearms that shoot small ball bearings using compressed air or gas, rather than bullets. — The Borneo Post
Free Malaysia Today
2 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Prisons dept was okay with Najib filing report, says Shafee
Lawyer Shafee Abdullah said the prisons department needed permission from the home minister for Najib Razak to file a police report in person. KUALA LUMPUR : Najib Razak's lawyer claims that the prisons department would have allowed the former prime minister to file a police report over the royal addendum issue if home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail had given permission. However, Shafee Abdullah said that multiple letters for permission from the minister went unanswered, forcing him to help lodge the report on behalf of his client. 'The prison authorities are generous, they had no objections to Najib filing a report himself. Unfortunately, they needed permission from their superior, which is the home minister. 'We wrote to him multiple times but there was no reply,' he told a press conference at the lobby of the court complex here today. Earlier this week, Shafee lodged a police report against former attorney-general Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh for allegedly 'deliberately misleading' the High Court that the royal addendum was speculative and based on hearsay evidence. He lodged the report at the Dang Wangi police headquarters. Shafee claimed that Terrirudin had committed an offence under Section 209 of the Penal Code, which relates to dishonestly making a false claim before a court. He also accused the ex-AG of committing an offence under Section 204 of the Penal Code by hiding a document with the intention of preventing it from being used as evidence in court. Last month, Najib filed an application to initiate contempt proceedings against Terrirudin, who is now a Federal Court judge. His legal team claimed that Terrirudin, while serving as the AG, failed to reveal the former king's royal addendum allowing Najib to serve the remainder of his jail sentence under house arrest. During a hearing in January, Shafee told the Court of Appeal that the addendum was sent by the Pahang palace to Terrirudin on Jan 29, 2024.
