THE anti-graft chief’s justification for why he did not appear before a Parliament committee to answer questions on his share-trading controversy was not shared by Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Azhar Azizan Harun.

       Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki said he declined to appear before the Public Select Committee (PSC) for Agencies under the Prime Minister’s Department because it was an “invitation” and not a subpoena.

       Azhar, however, said he did not agree with this.

       “I have read on news portals that Azam said he was not subpoenaed but only invited.

       “I do not agree with this. I definitely do not agree with that statement, if that statement was made by him because he was quoted as saying such,” Azhar said when his view on the matter was sought by Khoo Poay Tiong (PH-Kota Melaka) in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday.

       The PSC has sought to question Azam about his shares’ ownership.

       Azhar said Procedure 83(2) of the Dewan Rakyat Standing Order noted that a summon was akin to an individual being “subpoenaed”.

       He added that the term “subpoenaed” was used only by the courts.

       “If a person is summoned, it can be through a letter and it can clearly be stated either firmly or softly.

       “If the letter by the (PSC) chairman is clear, then the person who is summoned, invited or required to attend, has to appear, as under 83(2) this is clear,” he said.

       Azam said he did not appear before the PSC as it was merely an invitation for him to attend the meeting and was not a subpoena.

       He said if it had been a subpoena, he would have attended because as an enforcement officer, he knew the law and would respect it.

       However, Azhar said the issue of whether Azam did not want to appear before the PSC did not arise for now as the meeting had been postponed and the date left vacant while the chairman sought legal advice since Azam had written a letter to raise legal issues pertaining to it.

       Azhar also said he did not have the power to compel an individual to appear before the PSC under 83(2).

       “The problem is power and the source of the power. Where is the source of power for me to call someone to appear before the committee? I don’t have the power,” he said, adding that the power lies with the PSC.