Police confirms investigating Lalitha over Azam articles

04 Feb 2022 03:30pm
Jalil said the investigation was conducted under Section 500 of the Penal Code.
Jalil said the investigation was conducted under Section 500 of the Penal Code.
A
A
A
Police confirmed that they are investigating a former researcher at the Centre for Centre to Combat Corruption and Cronyism, Lalitha Kunaratnam for writing an article related to the alleged share ownership by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki.

Bukit Aman Criminal Investigation Department (CID) director Datuk Seri Abd Jalil Hassan said the investigation was conducted under Section 500 of the Penal Code.

"A complete investigation paper will be submitted to the Attorney -General's Chambers," he said when contacted by Sinar Daily today (Feb 4).

On Thursday. Lalitha and her lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon were present at the Bukit Aman Police headquarters to give their statement and assist with investigations.

On Jan 12, Azam via his lawyer, filed a defamation suit against Lalitha demanding RM10 million in damages at the Kuala Lumpur High Court in relations to the articles she wrote and published by a local news portal on Oct 26 and Dec 15 last year.

Azam’s lawyer Megat Abdul Munir said the decision to file the suit against Lalitha was done after she failed to response to the Letter of Demand issued on Jan 6.

During a press conference on Jan 5, Azam had publicly announced that he would be taking legal action against those responsible for tarnishing not only his but also the MACC’s reputation.

He continues to stand by his innocence.

Also during the press conference, MACC Advisory Board chairman Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang cleared Azam’s name, where it stated the shares involved were purchased by Azam’s brother Nasir Baki.
Related Articles:


However, on Jan 19, the Securities Commission (SC) Malaysia concluded that there was no conclusive evidence that Azam had breached Section 25 of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991(SICDA).

SC stated that based on evidence gathered during Azam’s inquiry, the account in question was under Azam’s name and fully under his control.