KUALA LUMPUR: Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said the use of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (SOSMA) in the case involving GISB Holdings Sdn Bhd (GISBH) is justified due to the serious nature of the crimes, such as human trafficking.
He said the high number of arrests necessitated the act to be used to facilitate investigations.
“We are employing standard procedures, but the scale of the arrests is considerable. We will request remand periods; the court typically grants seven days.
“If our investigations are not complete by then, we request an additional remand period, and the court may grant another seven days or sometimes five, or even three days. This does not provide enough time to conclude the investigation given the number of detainees.
Saifuddin Nasution said there are elements indicating that these activities were conducted collectively, involving serious crimes such as human trafficking, which carry significant material, financial, power or influence benefits.
“Therefore, it is appropriate to invoke Section 130V of the Penal Code to allow us to utilise SOSMA after the remand period ends,” he said during the winding-up session of the minister’s briefing session on GISBH in the Dewan Rakyat today.
Saifuddin Nasution also revealed that funds collected from GISBH members were transferred into the personal accounts of the company’s board of directors, some of which were used to purchase various assets in cash.
He noted that GISBH has a structure divided into several clusters, including central, northern, southern, domestic and international regions.
“This structure sets targets for monthly collections, estimated at RM70,000. These funds must be deposited into the individual accounts of the leadership within the GISBH board of directors,” he said.
In the same session, Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Nancy Shukri clarified that a woman who claimed a Social Welfare Department (JKM) officer had coerced her into signing blank documents while trying to regain custody of her child was confused about the intentions of the case officer.
She said the documents provided to the woman were notifications regarding the rescued child, based on the procedures established under Section 18(2) of the Child Act 2001
