There has been much speculation in the press recently over the identity of a “Tan Sri lawyer and his son” who were both supposedly involved in the preparation of my client’s 2nd statutory declaration (SD), the contents of which were specifically designed to withdraw the allegations made in his earlier statutory declaration and to state that my client, Bala, was ‘compelled’ to make those allegations ‘under duress’.
The reasons for this alleged ‘compulsion’ leading to the alleged ‘duress’ were never explained in the 2nd SD.
As far as I am concerned, the 1st SD was transcribed, produced and eventually affirmed by my client over a period of two months during which time every detail was painstakingly checked and cross-checked to ensure the highest accuracy. There was never any reason for my client to withdraw those contents unless he had been forced to, which is now apparent.
Let me make it very clear that my client does not know the identity of the lawyer(s) who drafted this 2nd statutory declaration. He had not instructed any lawyer to do so. This is because the contents of his 1st statutory declaration were true to the best of his knowledge and belief. Therefore there was never any necessity to alter the contents of his 1st SD. However, Bala was forced to sign a 2nd SD because of a threat to the safety of his wife and children.
My
client was presented with this 2nd SD when he was being held in a room
at the Hilton Hotel, KL Sentral, on the morning of July 4, 2008. In the
hotel room with him at that time were Deepak Jaikishan (left), his brother Dinesh and one ASP Suresh. At about 8am Deepak received a phone call from the reception desk informing him that some documents had just been delivered to the hotel. Dinesh went to retrieve them and brought them back to the room.
A few minutes later an elderly Malay gentleman turned up at this room. His name was Zainal Abidin bin Muhayat. He introduced himself as a commissioner for oaths and proceeded to attest Bala’s signature on the 2nd SD. Bala had not read the contents of this 2nd SD. He was merely requested to sign it. This commissioner for oaths then placed his stamp over his own signature.
The address on this stamp is Suite 17.01, 17th Floor, Menara Pan Global, Lorong P Ramlee, Kuala Lumpur. It has been pointed out that this address is the same as that of the law firm of Zul Rafique & Partners in 2008. I presume this commissioner for oaths must have been working from this office, unless of course a false address had been used.
The commissioner for oaths then informed Deepak to make sure he showed my client where his office was situated whilst Deepak was driving Bala to the Prince Court Hotel for a press conference scheduled to take place later that morning.
Concern of the commissioner of oaths
This
commissioner for oaths was concerned that Bala would know exactly where
his office was as a commissioner for oaths is only supposed to attest
signatures at the premises at which he is registered. He wanted to
ensure Bala knew where his office was situated in the event he was
asked. Deepak however, did not show Bala where this office was. At the Prince Court Hotel, Bala was held in an area above the main lobby where he was introduced to a lawyer named Arunampalam, whose presence at the hotel had been organised by Deepak. This lawyer informed Bala that he was not to say anything to the press, who were waiting in the main lobby, as he, Arunampalam, would do all the talking.
Bala
had never met this lawyer Arunampalam before that and neither had Bala
engaged him to represent him in the scheduled press conference. At the conference that followed, Arunampalam handed out copies of the 2nd SD to all the journalists present and informed them that Bala had been forced to sign the 1st SD under duress. This, of course, is totally untrue.
The only duress Bala had been under was when he was forced to sign the 2nd SD as threats had unequivocally been made to the wellbeing of his wife and children by both Deepak and Nazim Tun Razak. These threats have been documented in earlier revelations Bala has made and are in the public domain. Both Deepak and Nazim Tun Razak have not denied these allegations.
It is pertinent to note that whilst this press conference was being held at the Prince Court Hotel, Bala’s wife and children were at the immigration department at Pusat Bandar Damansara with Deepak’s secretary, a Miss Wong, having their passports hastily processed for the intended flight from Malaysia, due to take place that very afternoon.
This
was one of the conditions imposed by Deepak and the parties behind him
as a guarantee for the safety of Bala’s wife and children….that they
immediately leave the country until such time that Najib Tun Razak
became prime minister. Having laid out the circumstances in which Bala was made to sign that 2nd SD, I would now wish to comment on the speculation surrounding the lawyers involved in preparing that second SD.
The Bar Council president, Lim Chee Wee, has made a statement to the effect that the Bar Council would no doubt urge the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board to investigate this matter should a complaint be lodged against the lawyers who prepared this second SD.
I wish to clarify the position at present.
Bala is unable to lodge a complaint with this Disciplinary Board for the simple reason he is unable to identify the lawyer(s) who attended to the drafting of that 2nd SD, as this was done in his absence and without his permission.
All he is able to do at this point in time is to confirm that he had not instructed any lawyer to prepare that 2nd SD, nor was he present before a lawyer when it was being prepared. The contents of that 2nd SD are also totally false.
Deepak has gone on record to say that the lawyers involved in the preparation of that 2nd SD were in fact a ‘Tan Sri and his son who is also a lawyer’.
This
statement has, in the circumstances, publically perpetrated, by
insinuation and deduction, the identification of Tan Sri Cecil Abraham (left)
and his son Sunil as the possible culprits due to a strange series of
coincidences, which in themselves are indeed unfortunate. I wish to place on record that I find these allegations extremely surprising as I know Cecil personally. He is a barrister of the highest integrity with at least 40 years of impeccable service to the Malaysian Bar and is held in high esteem by all those who have had the privilege of making his acquaintance, both personally and professionally.
Bar Council president must act
It is therefore unthinkable that someone who possesses such an ingrained sense of dignity, integrity and professionalism and who has dedicated over 40 years of his life in upholding all that is sacrosanct to the honour of being a member of an historically noble profession, would in any way so blatantly compromise those ideals by partaking in something as undignified and as irresponsible as knowingly formulating a false statement to be sworn by someone he had never met, under circumstances of obvious duress and coercion, knowing at all times that I was representing Bala.
It is for this reason Bala will not, at this point in time, be lodging a complaint with the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board for the simple reason he is unable to identify the lawyer (or lawyers) concerned who were involved in preparing a knowingly false statutory declaration without any instructions from him to do so.
As this is a rather serious matter, may I suggest that the president of the Bar Council organise a simple email to be sent to all members of the Malaysian Bar requesting that the member(s) responsible for drafting that 2nd SD do the right thing and make themselves known, as it appears innocent parties may be publicly falling victim to the blame game and finger pointing which has emerged since Deepak’s revelations, to which I certainly do not subscribe.
Americk Singh Sidhu
No comments:
Post a Comment