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

©Malaysiakini (Used by permission)
by Beh Lih Yi

Three police officers went to the Bar Council to question three office-bearers about the ‘Walk for Justice’. They were instead quizzed on procedural aspects of their mission.

After 30 minutes, they left the Bar Council premises in Leboh Pasar Besar, Kuala Lumpur - where the questioning was to have taken place - without recording statements from their targets.

The trio, from the Putrajaya district police headquarters, refused to comment when approached by reporters.

The police had planned to question council president Ambiga Sreenevasan, vice-president Ragunath Kesavan and secretary Lim Chee Wee, based on a complaint lodged in relation to the protest march on Sept 26. The complaint was reportedly lodged by a police officer that day.

At a press conference, Ambiga explained that lawyers for the office-bearers had requested details of the First Information Report - including the serial number of the police report against the council, the date and the complainant’s name - at the onset of today’s meeting.

“This request was made so that our lawyers could properly advise us as to our rights under Section 112 of the CPC (Criminal Procedure Code), which was invoked by the police to attempt to take statements from us,” she said.

According to her, the police declined to accede to their request.

“They wanted to proceed to record our statement. However our lawyers took the position to advise us that without the information requested, we will not be in the position to give any statement,” she added.

Following that, the three police officers left, saying they would be in touch but without indicating a date for the next meeting.

‘Uncertainty over procedures’

To a question, Ambiga said the police had merely informed the office-bearers that the probe was being carried out under the Police Act. They did not specify which section of the Act was being invoked or what the offence was.

To another question as to whether the office-bearers’ request for more details could be construed as refusing to co-operate with the police, she replied: “Absolutely not. We are ready to co-operate as long as we know what we are being investigated for.”

Ambiga’s counsel, veteran lawyer Sulaiman Abdullah, confirmed that the police had not explained their inability to provide more details on the complaint against the council.

He quipped: “They might have wanted legal advice themselves, they didn’t appear too sure (on the procedures). This is a new territory to them... They did not seem to understand they have to do it (to provide details of the complaint).”

Ragunath and Lim were respectively represented by lawyers M Puravalen and Cheow Wee.

Another office-bearer, treasurer George Varughese, and former Bar council president Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari were also present during the meeting. About 10 lawyers showed up to express support for their leaders.

The council had organised the march in Putrajaya to focus attention on judicial reforms, following revelations in a video recording, since dubbed ‘the Lingam tape’, which was released by PKR on Sept 19.

Despite the council’s calls for a Royal commission of inquiry, the government has only created a three-member panel comprising two former judges and a social activist to determine the authenticity of the clip.

Asked if the council will meet the panel, Ambiga said an appointment has yet to be given following a request submitted on Oct 8.

On whether the council will make an appearance before the panel when it meets next Monday for the second time, she said the timing was inappropriate since it would coincide with the opening day of the annual Malaysian Law Conference.

Ahmad Fairuz, who was the chief judge of Malaya at the time of clip was said to been recorded in 2002, has issued a denial through de facto law minister Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz while Lingam has maintained silence.

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed