Fourteen lawyers have filed a motion to the Bar’s coming annual
general meeting (AGM) for a committee to be set up to probe
circumstances surrounding private investigator P Balasubramaniam’s
second statutory declaration (SD).
The motion for the Bar Council to "establish an Independent Investigation Committee to urgently enquire into the facts and circumstances relating to the preparation and execution" of the SD was proposed by Wan Hidayati Nadirah Wan Ahmad Nasir.
It was filed yesterday ahead of the AGM to be held on March 16.
In the motion, the lawyers expressed concern over the details of the circumstances and contents of the two SDs made by Bala (right) issued on March 1 and 4, 2008, that have emerged in recent months.
“The matters (surrounding the SDs) have to date been publicly available on the worldwide web and been the subject of much discussion and consternation among Malaysians,” the motion states.
“If the assertions of Bala and Deepak (Jaikishan) are true, then the preparation of SD2 may amount to acts of criminality under the Penal Code, including perjury, giving false information regarding an offence and obstruction of justice under Part XI of the Penal Code.
“Further, those involved in the purported scheme to coerce Bala to retract SD1 may have engaged in abuse of power and corrupt practices punishable under the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009,” it says.
The motion details, among others, the private investigator's revelation in his first SD of certain details surrounding the murder of Mongolian interpreter Altantuya Shaariibuu.
Bala has also claimed that his second SD, which serves to retract his first, was made under duress.
Last December, businessman Deepak Jaikishan in media interviews also corroborated Bala’s claims on the preparation of the second SD.
The motion further states: “In this, the advocates and solicitors concerned may have committed criminal offences or aided and abetted the commission of criminal offences.
“In doing so, they would have brought the legal profession into disrepute.”
The motion has been posted on legal advocacy group Loyar Burok's website.
Bar Council's indecisiveness slammed
The lawyers in the motion said SD1 contained matters that were not only pertinent to an ongoing criminal trial, but also to “matters of the public administration of the country”.
Furthermore, the Malaysian Bar was obliged under the section 42 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 to uphold justice regardless.
In particular, it was critical that of the Bar Council’s alleged indecisiveness and the Bar president’s pre-emptive statements.
“The Bar Council had permitted itself to be viewed as being reluctant to act decisively on the matter, particularly in light of the president of the Bar having reportedly characterised Deepak as being ‘someone whose own background is cause for concern’ ... notwithstanding the fact that an enquiry has yet to be conducted into the matter,” read the motion.
The group moved that the committee be immediately set up with a view towards lodging an official complaint with the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Boa rd.
In a posting on Loyar Burok’s website today, a poster signing off as ‘LoyarBocor’ said the council would hopefully support the motion.
“We are in for an exciting debate at the AGM,” the poster wrote.
'Why not get Bala's help?'
Meanwhile Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo has questioned Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee on the status of the council’s probe into the lawyers said to be behind SD2.
Following
the motion to the Bar, the lawyer said an update was in order, as “many
months have gone by. It would not be out of place to say that the
credibility of the Bar Council and its president are at stake.”
“Lim had on Jan 4 this year said that the Bar would make the necessary inquiries to ascertain the identities of the lawyers concerned and to consider whether they have committed any professional misconduct.
“All appears to have gone silent after that, thereby leaving many to ask if the Bar has somewhat conveniently forgotten about the probe,” said Gobind.
Gobind said that any problems of lacking evidence would now be solved since Bala has now returned to Malaysia.
“Lim should also tell us if the Bar will seek the assistance of P Balasubramaniam himself - since he has now returned - in its probe.
“There may have been ‘problems’ earlier about a lack of evidence but that seems to be a non-issue now,” said the DAP parliamentarian.
The motion for the Bar Council to "establish an Independent Investigation Committee to urgently enquire into the facts and circumstances relating to the preparation and execution" of the SD was proposed by Wan Hidayati Nadirah Wan Ahmad Nasir.
It was filed yesterday ahead of the AGM to be held on March 16.
In the motion, the lawyers expressed concern over the details of the circumstances and contents of the two SDs made by Bala (right) issued on March 1 and 4, 2008, that have emerged in recent months.“The matters (surrounding the SDs) have to date been publicly available on the worldwide web and been the subject of much discussion and consternation among Malaysians,” the motion states.
“If the assertions of Bala and Deepak (Jaikishan) are true, then the preparation of SD2 may amount to acts of criminality under the Penal Code, including perjury, giving false information regarding an offence and obstruction of justice under Part XI of the Penal Code.
“Further, those involved in the purported scheme to coerce Bala to retract SD1 may have engaged in abuse of power and corrupt practices punishable under the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act 2009,” it says.
The motion details, among others, the private investigator's revelation in his first SD of certain details surrounding the murder of Mongolian interpreter Altantuya Shaariibuu.
Bala has also claimed that his second SD, which serves to retract his first, was made under duress.
Last December, businessman Deepak Jaikishan in media interviews also corroborated Bala’s claims on the preparation of the second SD.
The motion further states: “In this, the advocates and solicitors concerned may have committed criminal offences or aided and abetted the commission of criminal offences.
“In doing so, they would have brought the legal profession into disrepute.”
The motion has been posted on legal advocacy group Loyar Burok's website.
Bar Council's indecisiveness slammed
The lawyers in the motion said SD1 contained matters that were not only pertinent to an ongoing criminal trial, but also to “matters of the public administration of the country”.
Furthermore, the Malaysian Bar was obliged under the section 42 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 to uphold justice regardless.
In particular, it was critical that of the Bar Council’s alleged indecisiveness and the Bar president’s pre-emptive statements.“The Bar Council had permitted itself to be viewed as being reluctant to act decisively on the matter, particularly in light of the president of the Bar having reportedly characterised Deepak as being ‘someone whose own background is cause for concern’ ... notwithstanding the fact that an enquiry has yet to be conducted into the matter,” read the motion.
The group moved that the committee be immediately set up with a view towards lodging an official complaint with the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Boa rd.
In a posting on Loyar Burok’s website today, a poster signing off as ‘LoyarBocor’ said the council would hopefully support the motion.
“We are in for an exciting debate at the AGM,” the poster wrote.
'Why not get Bala's help?'
Meanwhile Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo has questioned Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee on the status of the council’s probe into the lawyers said to be behind SD2.
Following
the motion to the Bar, the lawyer said an update was in order, as “many
months have gone by. It would not be out of place to say that the
credibility of the Bar Council and its president are at stake.”“Lim had on Jan 4 this year said that the Bar would make the necessary inquiries to ascertain the identities of the lawyers concerned and to consider whether they have committed any professional misconduct.
“All appears to have gone silent after that, thereby leaving many to ask if the Bar has somewhat conveniently forgotten about the probe,” said Gobind.
Gobind said that any problems of lacking evidence would now be solved since Bala has now returned to Malaysia.
“Lim should also tell us if the Bar will seek the assistance of P Balasubramaniam himself - since he has now returned - in its probe.
“There may have been ‘problems’ earlier about a lack of evidence but that seems to be a non-issue now,” said the DAP parliamentarian.
No comments:
Post a Comment