Law Minister Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz has challenged opposition MPs to
refer him to the Rights and Privileges Committee if they insist that he
had lied to the Dewan Rakyat.
Nazri
said that Batu MP Tian Chua and Subang MP R Sivarasa should act, rather
than make press statements on allegations that he had wrongly
interpreted the law when replying to a question on why the
attorney-general's chambers did not charge private investigator P
Balasubramaniam for perjury.
“If I had lied in Parliament they should know what to do - they should refer me to the privileges committee. I want them to do that,” he told reporters at the Parliament lobby today.
Nazri criticised the duo for failing to research the matter carefully as a similar answer was given to Ipoh Timur MP Lim Kit Siang last year and the matter was never contested.
“I debated with him (Lim) and in my reply, I gave the same answer as to why Balasubramaniam was not charged for perjury.
“Now it comes in the (form of) a question from Tian Chua and I gave the same reply. One thing I want to tell you; the minister of law doesn't lie and worse, you don't lie in parliament,” he said.
Nazri
said that Batu MP Tian Chua and Subang MP R Sivarasa should act, rather
than make press statements on allegations that he had wrongly
interpreted the law when replying to a question on why the
attorney-general's chambers did not charge private investigator P
Balasubramaniam for perjury. “If I had lied in Parliament they should know what to do - they should refer me to the privileges committee. I want them to do that,” he told reporters at the Parliament lobby today.
Nazri criticised the duo for failing to research the matter carefully as a similar answer was given to Ipoh Timur MP Lim Kit Siang last year and the matter was never contested.
“I debated with him (Lim) and in my reply, I gave the same answer as to why Balasubramaniam was not charged for perjury.
“Now it comes in the (form of) a question from Tian Chua and I gave the same reply. One thing I want to tell you; the minister of law doesn't lie and worse, you don't lie in parliament,” he said.
'Was oppostion duo sleeping?'
In
the written answer to Chua on Tuesday, Nazri repeated that the
Attorney-General (AG) Chambers decided not to pursue the case further as
the two conflicting statutory declarations (SD) would have had “no
effect” on the Altantuya Shaaribuu murder trial.
Nazri
had explained, that the AG's decision was based on a precedent set in
an earlier case involving the admission of a SD as evidence, in that it
is only an offence to make a false statement in a declaration if it is
used in a court of law.
Since the private investigator's SDs were not made for any court proceedings, action cannot be taken against him, Nazri added.
“Where were they (Tian Chua and Sivarasa) last year when (I gave that explanation)? Were they sleeping on the job?” he asked.
Sivarasa, who was also at Chua's press conference, took issue with the explanation and argued that Section 199 does not explicitly state that a SD must be made with the intention of using it in court.
Nazri
had explained, that the AG's decision was based on a precedent set in
an earlier case involving the admission of a SD as evidence, in that it
is only an offence to make a false statement in a declaration if it is
used in a court of law. Since the private investigator's SDs were not made for any court proceedings, action cannot be taken against him, Nazri added.
“Where were they (Tian Chua and Sivarasa) last year when (I gave that explanation)? Were they sleeping on the job?” he asked.
Sivarasa, who was also at Chua's press conference, took issue with the explanation and argued that Section 199 does not explicitly state that a SD must be made with the intention of using it in court.
However, Nazri demanded that Chua and Sivarasa explain how he “misinterpreted” the law.
'Nazri creating additional elements'
Speaking
to reporters later, Sivarasa, who is a practising lawyer, argued that
Nazri's interpretation of the law was flawed and that the SD was
admissible in court.
“The word is 'received' in Section 199. It can be received in court. He is saying that it is not admissible in court, which means it cannot be produced in court.
“I'm sure there is no such thing. That is the difference between people who practice law and lawyers who don't practise and become politicians,” said Sivarasa, taking a jibe at Nazri who is a graduate of UK's prestigious Lincoln Inn.
The MP added that Nazri had “created additional elements” in saying that the SD must be made with the intention of it being used in court.
“That is a misleading interpretation, that is a copout, I stand by what I said,” said Sivarasa, adding that he will discuss further action against Nazri with Chua.
“The word is 'received' in Section 199. It can be received in court. He is saying that it is not admissible in court, which means it cannot be produced in court.
“I'm sure there is no such thing. That is the difference between people who practice law and lawyers who don't practise and become politicians,” said Sivarasa, taking a jibe at Nazri who is a graduate of UK's prestigious Lincoln Inn.
The MP added that Nazri had “created additional elements” in saying that the SD must be made with the intention of it being used in court.
“That is a misleading interpretation, that is a copout, I stand by what I said,” said Sivarasa, adding that he will discuss further action against Nazri with Chua.
No comments:
Post a Comment