“This would be plainly a blatant misuse of power by any enforcement agency.

“The Malaysian Bar reiterates that all accused persons must enjoy the presumption of innocence and, pending the determination of a case by the court, no accused person should be treated as if he or she is guilty of a criminal offence.”

He was commenting on the arrest and detention of Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng before he was charged with corruption over the purchase of a bungalow in Pinhorn Road.

Thiru said there was no basis for the detention and arrest as Lim had been cooperating willingly with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) investigations into the allegations.

He said MACC began its investigation into allegations of corruption against Lim in March 2016.

The DAP secretary-general had voluntarily presented himself for questioning by the MACC on May 6, 2016 and on May 7, 2016 for nine hours and 10 hours respectively.

Lim had attended questioning again on May 22, 2016, and acceded to MACC’s request to inspect his home.

“As YAB Lim had been cooperating willingly in the MACC’s investigation, there appears to have been no basis for MACC to arrest and detain him overnight on June 29, 2016,” Thiru said.

Thiru also criticised the RM1 million bail set for Lim as being “extraordinarily high and thus punitive”, noting that the purpose of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in court for trial.

“In this instance, there seems to be nothing to suggest that YAB Lim posed a flight risk,” Thiru said, adding that the excessive bail could be perceived as unfairly penalising the accused prior to trial.

Thiru also commented on the calls for Lim to take a leave of absence or resign from his chief minister position pending the conclusion of the prosecution.

He said that although Lim is not strictly legally required to do so, there have been precedents of public officials facing prosecution for alleged criminal offences vacating their offices, whether temporarily or permanently.

This, Thiru said, was done if there is a “real or apparent risk of direct or indirect interference by the official in investigatory and/or prosecutorial decisions”.

However, Thiru also noted that the commencement of prosecution against Lim “presumably” meant that investigations were completed.

“There should no longer be any possibility of interference with the investigation,” he said.

Thiru commented that any possibility of interference from Lim would depend on the nature of the evidence to be used against him in the prosecution.

“On the face of the charges, the evidence is uncertain and it would be premature at this stage to decisively conclude whether YAB Lim should still remain in office,” he said.

Thiru said that there would still be some risk of interference if there is a need for oral witness evidence, and the relevant witnesses are Lim’s subordinates.