Lawyer-turned-activist Haris Ibrahim welcomes the council’s decision to probe for possible misconduct in the drafting of the second SD, but still has reservations.
PETALING JAYA: The Bar Council’s decision to investigate the drafting of P Balasubramaniam’s second statutory declaration (SD) is a step in the right direction and will be monitored closely, lawyer-turned-activist Haris Ibrahim said today.
Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee told The Malaysian Insider today that it would look into possible misconduct surrounding the second SD, though he declined to elaborate.
The SD reversed an earlier one Balasubramaniam had signed, which implicated prime minister Najib Tun Razak in the 2006 murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu.
Haris told FMT: “This is good. Since they declined to elaborate, my immediate reaction would be that it is a welcome announcement.
“The Bar Council must be thorough and leave no stone unturned in their investigations, and to conduct it without fear or favour.”
He said that he would be watching the Bar Council for any missteps, and that he would not hesitate to voice out his dissatisfaction if any aspect of the probe was seen to be wanting.
Carpet trader Deepak Jaikishan revealed in a recent interview with PAS organ Harakah that a “Tan Sri” lawyer and his son had been involved in the preparation of the second SD.
The name of the lawyer, however, was bleeped out in the video interview.
Following the disclosure, Haris wrote to the council on Monday requesting that it probe the lawyers’ identity as well as ascertain if there was impropriety in the preparation of the second SD.
But when Lim said more evidence was required for the Bar Council to take action, Haris wrote a second letter on Wednesday, this time disclosing the names of the lawyers.
However, Haris refused to reveal the names to the public.
Bar must answer two questions
The Tan Sri lawyer was finally revealed to be Cecil Abraham, who sits on the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) panel. In exposing the lawyer’s identity, former member of MACC advisory panel Robert Phang urged Abraham to come forward and verify the claims.
However, Balasubramaniam’s lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu, stressed that Abraham was a “barrister of the highest integrity” and maintained that it was “unthinkable” for Abraham to have been involved in the preparation of the second SD.
“We must await the outcome of the Bar Council’s investigation. Americk is articulating feelings from a long period of friendship, so what he said was understandable. But it is not based on investigation of facts,” said Haris.
“I’m glad that the Bar Council has agreed to move in the right direction, but it must answer two questions: Who drafted the SD, and what were the circumstances in that it was affirmed?
“I mean, Bala has come out and said that he didn’t even instruct the lawyer to draw it out. He wasn’t even permitted to read what he was signing,” he added.
Haris was referring to a statement by Americk yesterday, where he alleged that the second SD had been drafted without the latter’s input. He also claimed that Balasubramaniam was forced to sign the second SD because of threats to the safety of his wife and children.
“So when you take these circumstances into account, the Bar Council must appraise if there was impropriety in the preparation of the SD,” said Haris. “This is not a mundane, benign SD that involves, say, replacing one’s lost MyKad.
“It involves Balasubramaniam confessing an offence, and he was not even privy to what he was signing. The public must know if impropriety took place, and so must the Bar Council,” said Haris.
PETALING JAYA: The Bar Council’s decision to investigate the drafting of P Balasubramaniam’s second statutory declaration (SD) is a step in the right direction and will be monitored closely, lawyer-turned-activist Haris Ibrahim said today.Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee told The Malaysian Insider today that it would look into possible misconduct surrounding the second SD, though he declined to elaborate.
The SD reversed an earlier one Balasubramaniam had signed, which implicated prime minister Najib Tun Razak in the 2006 murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu.
Haris told FMT: “This is good. Since they declined to elaborate, my immediate reaction would be that it is a welcome announcement.
“The Bar Council must be thorough and leave no stone unturned in their investigations, and to conduct it without fear or favour.”
He said that he would be watching the Bar Council for any missteps, and that he would not hesitate to voice out his dissatisfaction if any aspect of the probe was seen to be wanting.
Carpet trader Deepak Jaikishan revealed in a recent interview with PAS organ Harakah that a “Tan Sri” lawyer and his son had been involved in the preparation of the second SD.
The name of the lawyer, however, was bleeped out in the video interview.
Following the disclosure, Haris wrote to the council on Monday requesting that it probe the lawyers’ identity as well as ascertain if there was impropriety in the preparation of the second SD.
But when Lim said more evidence was required for the Bar Council to take action, Haris wrote a second letter on Wednesday, this time disclosing the names of the lawyers.
However, Haris refused to reveal the names to the public.
Bar must answer two questions
The Tan Sri lawyer was finally revealed to be Cecil Abraham, who sits on the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) panel. In exposing the lawyer’s identity, former member of MACC advisory panel Robert Phang urged Abraham to come forward and verify the claims.
However, Balasubramaniam’s lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu, stressed that Abraham was a “barrister of the highest integrity” and maintained that it was “unthinkable” for Abraham to have been involved in the preparation of the second SD.
“We must await the outcome of the Bar Council’s investigation. Americk is articulating feelings from a long period of friendship, so what he said was understandable. But it is not based on investigation of facts,” said Haris.
“I’m glad that the Bar Council has agreed to move in the right direction, but it must answer two questions: Who drafted the SD, and what were the circumstances in that it was affirmed?
“I mean, Bala has come out and said that he didn’t even instruct the lawyer to draw it out. He wasn’t even permitted to read what he was signing,” he added.
Haris was referring to a statement by Americk yesterday, where he alleged that the second SD had been drafted without the latter’s input. He also claimed that Balasubramaniam was forced to sign the second SD because of threats to the safety of his wife and children.
“So when you take these circumstances into account, the Bar Council must appraise if there was impropriety in the preparation of the SD,” said Haris. “This is not a mundane, benign SD that involves, say, replacing one’s lost MyKad.
“It involves Balasubramaniam confessing an offence, and he was not even privy to what he was signing. The public must know if impropriety took place, and so must the Bar Council,” said Haris.
2 comments:
Well done Harris.the last time at a bar seminar on conversion an MP caused a scene at the Bar seminar.Was anything done against the MP?
Well done Harris.the last time at a bar seminar on conversion an MP caused a scene at the Bar seminar.Was anything done against the MP?
Post a Comment