JOURNALIST Lalitha Kunaratnam endured a three-hour questioning session at the Royal Malaysia Police headquarters in Bukit Aman today over two articles she wrote on Azam Baki’s alleged shares ownership scandal.

She is being investigated under section 505 of the penal code and section 233 of the Communication and Multimedia Act 1998.

Section 505 refers to statements conducing to public mischief and carries a jail sentence of up to two years or fine, or both, upon conviction, while section 233 refers to the sharing of offensive and menacing content and carries a jail sentence of up to one year or fine of up to RM50,000, or both, upon conviction.

Lalitha said police asked her 83 questions during the session today, which lasted more than three hours.

“The police report was lodged by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) senior assistant commissioner on January 7, a day after I received the letter of demand (from the MACC chief commissioner).

“All of them (questions) I have answered to the best of my capability,” she told reporters, who waited for her outside the premises.

Lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon, who is representing Lalitha, said: “The law is the law. It will be properly investigated. I am very confident police will do a good job.”

Lalitha has answered all the questions well, he added, denying that she is shaken up by the incident.

“No, she is not shaken up. She did very well; she answered the questions well and completely. She is not shaken up. She is tired.

“I think you have to accept that three and a half hours is a long time to be sitting in front of the police.”

Azam’s lawyer filed a defamation suit against Lalitha on January 12, demanding RM10 million in damages and a public apology.

Azam also wants an injunction to stop the journalist and others associated with her from repeating allegations surrounding the shares purchase in his name in public-listed companies.

The chief commissioner was investigated for owning millions of shares in two companies in 2015 and 2016, when he was investigations director.

Concerns have been raised over whether he declared the purchases and how he acquired the funds to purchase the shares.

Azam claimed that his brother used his trading account to buy the shares, which meant a possible violation of the regulations of the Securities Commission (SC).

The MACC anti-corruption advisory board, an internal oversight panel, accepted the explanation and found him free of any wrongdoing.

The SC, too, found no proof of proxy trading by Azam, saying that he was in full control of his trading account.

Azam did not breach section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991, it added.

The SC started looking into the issue after Azam admitted in a news conference that his brother, Nasir, used his trading account with his permission to buy millions of shares in two companies in 2015. – February 3, 2022.