Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

• Bala’s lawyer questioned by police
• Lawyer refuses to divulge info to cops
• PI's controversial SDs: Police record statement from lawyer Puravelan

©New Straits Times (Used by permission)
by Lee Shi-Ian

(From left) M. Puravalen, Sulaiman Abdullah and Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan outside the Federal Commercial Crimes Investigation Department in Bukit Aman yesterday.

KUALA LUMPUR: The Bar Council yesterday described the recent questioning of lawyers who had represented private investigator P. Balasubramaniam as an act of intimidation.

"This would amount to threatening lawyers into revealing information which cannot be revealed due to lawyer-client relationship," council president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan said outside the Federal Commercial Crimes Investigation Department in Bukit Aman yesterday.

She said she was shocked and concerned that lawyers were being hauled up for questioning.

"I sent a letter to the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan yesterday voicing out concerns about the issue as it is interfering with the duties of a lawyer," she said.

Ambiga had earlier accompanied lawyer M. Puravalen, who had been questioned for about an hour by police investigating the statutory declarations made by Balasubramaniam.

"This is an interference into the criminal justice system. If lawyers are not free of fear, how can they act in the best interest of their clients?" Ambiga asked.

"Our concern is that lawyers are being called in for doing their job. It is a ridiculous situation. It must stop because lawyers must be free from fear or favour.

"If the police are aware of the law, of privileged confidence between lawyer and client, why are they still calling up lawyers for questioning? It is intimidation," Ambiga said.

Puravalan said he had been repeatedly asked about his professional relationship with his client, to which he declined to answer.

He is the third lawyer to be called up by police in the past week. Earlier, lawyers Americk Singh Sidhu and N. Surendran were questioned.

Puravalen represented Balasubramaniam when the private investigator was arrested during investigations into the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu. Americk represented Balasubramaniam when his first statutory declaration was made, while Surendran represented Balasubramaniam's nephew, R. Kumaresan.

It was Kumaresan who had lodged a missing person's report when Balasubramaniam and his family went missing after the former policeman had retracted the statutory declaration.

"A client must get the assurance that under no circumstances will his lawyer reveal anything to the authorities," said council member Sulaiman Abdullah, who was also present outside the police headquarters.

"This point had been repeated to the police several times but they keep hauling lawyers in for questioning."

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

LET'S STAND UNITED
written by Ding Chu Teck, July 19, 2008

From recent developments including 'attacks' from Utusan Malaysia, I have the feeling that there are (and going to be) attempts to 'target' the Bar Council.

Let's stand united.

Ding Chu Teck

CEASE AND DESIST
written by Stephen Tan Ban Cheng, July 20, 2008

To my mind, the Malaysian Police Force is not some mindless creature, mindlessly replicating some act when strenuous representations to the contrary have been made.

The people comprising "the mind" of the police force must take note of the representations and cease and desist from breaching lawyer-client confidentiality and all its consequences in our eternal search for justice.

Stephen Tan Ban Cheng