KUALA LUMPUR, December nineteen Lawyer-turned-activist Haris Ibrahim wrote to the Bar Council again today, this time releasing the name of the counsel who was suspected to have drawn up P. Balasubramaniam's second sworn make the difference on the 2006 attempted murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu. In his letter, Haris confirmed which the "Tan Sri" counsel should not have drafted the second orthodox stipulation (SD) though consulting Balasubramaniam, indicating out which the in isolation investigator had effectively certified to committing perjury when he signed the document.
The letter, perceived by the Bar Council secretariat at 1.45pm this afternoon, additionally suggested for the second time which this was tantamount to veteran bungle by the eminent "Tan Sri" lawyer.
Writing in his blog this afternoon, Haris suggested which he had additionally ticked off Bar Council boss Lim Chee Wee in his letter, accusing him of publicly maligning Deepak Jaikishan's impression instead of selecting to examine the businessman's claims.
Deepak, who is additionally in the centre of the controversy surrounding Balasubramaniam's dual orthodox declarations (SDs), had not long ago slipped out the name of the counsel at the behind of the second SD during an talk with PAS organ Harakah.
But when the talk was carried on PAS' "TVPAS" channel on Youtube, the lawyer's name was muted out.
Haris had used this in his first minute to the Bar Council on Monday, urging the members to uncover the lawyer's temperament as well as examine if he or she had gone opposite the legal profession by drafting the SD though consulting Balasubramaniam.
But, citing Lim's remarks in headlines portal Free Malaysia Today to behind his accusation, Haris pronounced which the Bar Council chief had only chosen to criticise Deepak by saying wh! ich the businessman's "background is means for concern".
"Has the Bar Council investigated the credentials of this Deepak such which the boss can right away publicly call in to question his credibility, or is this based on marketplace talk or what is created in cyberspace?" he asked in his blog posting.
Haris forked out which as Deepak is presently endangered in the civil fit where he is represented by PKR lawyers R. Sivarasa as well as N. Surendran, Lim could have called on the solicitors to seek their client's cooperation to openly divulge the temperament of the counsel in Balasubramaniam's case.
"Instead, the boss sees fit to publicly assail the impression of the the single chairman who competence be means to immediately support the Bar Council if it chose to examine this matter?" he argued.
He after wrote in his blog which he had motionless to divulge the lawyer's name secretly to the Bar Council, saying he hoped this would put the members of their benefaction "dilemma". He did not, however, repeat the name in his blog.
Speaking to The Malaysian Insider progressing today, Haris confirmed which the pronounced counsel should have consulted the in isolation investigator first, indicating out which the request effectively contains his confession to perjury.
Haris additionally fumed over the Bar Council's clearly neutral reply to his censure on the make the difference yesterday.
Lim, in the make the difference yesterday, had urged some-more compelling evidence opposite the unnamed counsel in Balasubramaniam's box after reception Haris' complaint, saying the activist's knowledge of the individual's temperament though preference to secrete it had caused "unnecessary conjecture as well as confusion".
Haris refuted this in the blog posting yesterday, indicating out to Lim which he had merely created to the legislature requesting an review to identify the counsel endangered as well as to ascertain if there h! ad been any impropriety in the preparation of the sworn statement.
He remarkable which he had mentioned in his minute to be in possession of report from reliable sources on the solicitor's identity, though pronounced which this should not be taken to mean which he has "direct knowledge" of the person.
Haris insisted which the impending point of his minute had been overlooked - either the counsel had committed veteran bungle when scheming Balasubramaniam's (picture) second orthodox stipulation (SD). "Given which by the terms of SD2, Bala would be revelation to an offence of irreverence out the prior fake orthodox declaration, was it not obligatory on the solicitor(s) endangered in the preparation to have taken instructions from Bala as well as to have warned him of the consequences of affirming the orthodox stipulation which was being drawn up for his affirmation?" he asked in his blog.
Citing Section 42 as well as 99 of the Legal Profession Act, 1976 (LPA), Haris forked out which the Bar Council could house the censure opposite members of the Bar to the disciplinary house as well as did not need to wait for for others to come forward.
Section 42 states which the role of the Bar is to "uphold the means of probity though courtesy to the own interests or which of the members, uninfluenced by fear or favour".
According to Haris, Section 99 (3) stipulates: "Nothing in this territory shall be taken to preclude the Bar Council or the State Bar Committee from creation any censure of the own suit to the Disciplinary Board opposite an disciple as well as barrister or the pupil."
"Is it unable to investigate? The Malaysian Bar is unable to investigate? Do not the decent lawyers remaining at the Bar want to get to the bottom of this?" Haris asked.
There has been the cloud of poser ov! er the t emperament of the counsel who had drawn up Balasubramaniam's second SD on the 2006 attempted murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.
Balasubramaniam's second SD had come the day after his first on Jul 3, 2008, regarding Altantuya's 2006 murder, for which dual elite police commandos have been convicted as well as have been confronting death sentences.
In the harried press discussion on Jul 4, 2008, Balasubramaniam, accompanied by counsel M. Arulampalam, came out to repel his first SD, where he negated the essence of the first statement, claiming it had been signed under duress.
He then constructed the second one, which he claimed after in 2009 had been rebuilt by another lawyer, whom he did not meet with as well as who did not consult him when drafting the document.
Read More @ Source More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz
No comments:
Post a Comment