“The only question left is if someone close to Najib sabotaged him by informing a certain police personnel which conversations to tap, when and why. I’m not saying this is the case. I’m just saying, since Najib was surrounded by conmen, including Jho Low, it stands to reason that there could have been someone close to him who was sabotaging him in case Barisan Nasional lost the general election”
Raggie Jessy Rithaudeen
كليڤ اءوديو: باڬايمانا جك نجيب دسابوتاج اوليه اورڠڽ سنديري؟
There are many theories being put out as to who was responsible for the wire tapping that captured conversations involving Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and several others, including his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor.
Yesterday, I wrote an article in which I examined the legal aspects surrounding Telephone tapping (or wire tapping) by a third party, often by covert means.
I wrote:
“If the wire tap is done by a government agency pursuant to laws existing in a country, it is legal and can also be referred to as lawful interception.
“In Malaysia, Section 116C of the Criminal Procedure Code allows the public prosecutor to authorise interception of communications by police officers if he (or she) considers the communication to contain information related to the commission of a crime.
“Similar provisions are found in Section 43 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act and Section 6 of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act.
“In the case of the latter, a police superintendent or an officer of a higher rank may carry out wire tapping without first getting the public prosecutor’s authorisation “in urgent and sudden cases where immediate action is required leaving no moment of deliberation” before later informing the public prosecutor.
“It should interest you to know that changes to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) which made wire tapping possible in Malaysia were made in 2012 by the Najib administration.
“Under the circumstances, if it is established by the MACC that the audio recordings were wire taps conducted by personnel authorised under Section 116C of the CPC (Amendment) Act 2012 pursuant to terms under said act, the recordings are legal and therefore, authentic.”
So you see, wire tapping, if done by a government agency pursuant to laws existing in a country, is legal.
I also wrote that there are no provisions in those laws prohibiting authorities from making public audio clips obtained through the interception of telephone and (or) Internet-based conversations.
In this regard and this regard alone, the release of the “Najib audio clips,” as they have come to be known, is legal if it was established beforehand by the MACC that the recordings were wire taps involving all those affected, conducted through legitimate means.
However, I also pointed to the question of sub-judice insofar as the ongoing proceedings involving Najib’s corruption and power abuse trials go and made it clear that I did not wish to delve into the subject.
I think it’s best that we let the courts decide on it. What we can delve into here is a question everyone seems to have an opinion on but none has really addressed holistically.
Specifically, who exactly was involved with wire tapping conversations exhibited through the “Najib audio clips?”
In the past 24 hours, I have met and spoken with several people who were in the know and who could have provided me with an answer.
My mission wasn’t to make public the answer but to establish an information base which I could then use to set records straight.
The problem is, I got as many answers and theories as there were officials I spoke to.
I could see clearly that what one said depended on who he (or she) was aligned with, i.e., Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Najib or Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, and how he (or she) wanted the truth manipulated.
Actually, that’s the problem many faced just before and right after the 14thgeneral election. Without being involved with circles in the know, there was no way one could verify any piece of information received.
But even if you do have links with some circles, the information is still manipulated. So you see, at the end of the day, nobody knows precisely who or how the MACC got hold of the “Najib audio clips.”
But one thing is for certain – if indeed the wire taps were legal and done locally, they were most certainly conducted by police officers pursuant to Section 116C of the Criminal Procedure Code or Section 6 of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act.
This is considering that the MACC claims no involvement in the actual act of wire tapping, meaning, the police were behind it.
It follows, if the police are investigating the “Najib audio clips,” the investigation is likely intended to discover who delivered those clips to the MACC.
The only question left is if someone close to Najib sabotaged him by informing a certain police personnel which conversations to tap, when and why.
I’m not saying this is the case. I’m just saying, since Najib was surrounded by conmen, including Jho Low, it stands to reason that there could have been someone close to him who was sabotaging him in case Barisan Nasional lost the general election.
The mission could have been to expose elements of power abuse and “interference in administrative affairs” by an outsider to make sure that should BN lose, Najib would get nailed and everyone else would be let off the hook.
Somehow, everyone seems to be missing out on this and the fact that the taps were conducted during Najib’s tenure as Prime Minister.
And even if it is true that a certain police officer conducted the taps and thereafter handed them over to the MACC, no law would have been broken by that officer unless he (or she) acted in his (or her) own volition without authorisation by the relevant authority.
