MARCH 1 ― In its media statement released on February 22, the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) announced that it has completed its investigation ― telah selesai menjalankan siasatan ― on claims by former Inspector General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Bador that cartels were manipulating police promotions and conspiring to undermine the police force.

The EIAC is established under an Act of Parliament ― that is, the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission Act 2009 (Act 700). Besides its establishment, the Act provides for the EAIC’s functions and powers, and for other matters connected therewith.

In dealing with complaints, the EAIC is empowered under section 22(1) to investigate any complaints of misconduct it receives from a member of the public or that are referred to it by any person.

It appears from the media statement that the EAIC had exercised its powers of investigation relating to Hamid Bador’s claims. It is therefore opportune to note here that in exercising its powers relating to investigation, the EAIC “shall have the powers to conduct hearings if the Commission considers necessary or desirable to do so.” [Section 31(1)(a)]

Section 34 amplifies the legal position that the EAIC may hold a hearing if the Commission deems it necessary or expedient. Section 34 is set out in full below:

34.      Hearings

(1)      For the purposes of an investigation, the Commission may hold a hearing if the Commission deems it necessary or expedient.

(2)      A hearing shall be presided by such number of Commissioners as the Commission deems fit on a case-to-case basis.

 (3)     A person appearing at a hearing is entitled to be informed of the general scope and purpose of the hearing, unless the Commission is of the opinion that to disclose such information would seriously prejudice the investigation concerned.

 (4)     The Commission may be assisted by a legal officer appointed under section 14.

Section 35, which is set out in full below, then sets out how hearings may be conducted.

35.      Public and closed hearings

(1)      All hearings are to be open to the public.

(2)      Notwithstanding subsection (1), a hearing or part of a hearing may be closed to the public if the Commission is satisfied that —

 (a)     information or documents that may be given, or a matter that may arise during the public hearing or a part of the hearing is of a confidential nature; or

 (b)     the hearing or part of the hearing of a matter or part of a matter would not be conducive to the due administration of this Act if the hearing or part of the hearing is open to the public.

 (3)     In making these decisions, the Commission is obliged to have regard to any matters that it considers to be related to public interest.

 (4)     The Commission may give directions as to the persons who may be present at a hearing when it is being held as a closed hearing, and no person shall be present at the hearing in contravention of any such direction.

Given that Hamid Bador has chided the EAIC, calling its findings “shallow and incorrect”, shouldn’t the EAIC consider conducting hearings as it is empowered under sections 33(1)(a) and 34(1)?

Hamid Bador said that he had raised the cartel matter sincerely “for the sake of the country”.

“I did it for the sake of the country. Be brave for the truth,” he added.

Shouldn’t the EIAC reciprocate such sincerity with a hearing “for the purposes of an investigation” in the interest of the public?

It is a function of the EAIC to protect the interest of the public ― section 4(1)(c).

https://www.malaymail.com/news/what-you-think/2022/03/01/claims-of-cartel-in-police-force-should-eaic-hold-a-hearing-hafiz-hassan/2044655