Sivarasa’s Press Statement at the ACA October 11, 2007Posted by elizabethwong in Current Affairs, Democracy, Human Rights, Malaysia, Note2Self, Politics.
Tags: ACA, Fairuz, Police, R Sivarasa, Scandal, Videotape, VK Lingam
This morning Mr Sim Tze Tzin ( Personal Assistant to Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim ) and I delivered our written responses to the notices issued by the ACA on 4th October 2007 under section 22 of the Anti Corruption Act 1997 ordering us, amongst others, to provide details of the identity of the persons who brought the video clip to us.
We have declined to provide any information on the identity of the source or information that might lead to disclosure of their identity ( such as the name of the restaurant where we met them ) on the basis that it might compromise their personal safety. We have also said that it is not in our power to give such information as we had given them our undertaking not to reveal it to any one without their prior permission. We do not, at this point of time, have their permission to do so. We have also said that we will be able to supply that information once they authorise its disclosure.
We also informed the ACA that it is our view that issuance of the above-said notice under section 22 of the Act is an unreasonable exercise of power and is wrong in law for the following reasons:
a. that up to date the investigating officer/s have failed to conduct a proper and competent technical investigation into the authenticity of the video clip;
b. that this notice was issued to us even before any statement was recorded from Dato VK Lingam and/or Tun Ahmad Fairuz: hence there was no basis whatsoever for any assumption on the part of the investigating officer/s that the video may not be an authentic recording.
c. The protection accorded under section 53 of the Act to persons giving information to officers of the ACA may not apply in the circumstances of this investigation. That protection only applies in an investigation into a report made by an officer of the ACA after receiving such information from such persons.
We also pointed out to them that recent revelations of the alleged behaviour of ACA officers involved in the investigation of corruption allegations against Dato Ramli Yusuff, the Head of CID in Bukit Aman ( see http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/corridors.php?itemid=8821 entitled “A den of thieves” for full details) show that in the course of that investigation, ACA had issued an order to produce under section 22 of the Act to Datuk Ramli to produce a file containing names of police informants. Serious allegations are being made in writing by lawyers for Dato Ramli Yusuff that ACA officers had then contacted these police informants and subjected them to pressure and oblique threats to make them change their previous statements given to the Commercial Crime Investigation Department. Those lawyers take the position that such abuses of power warrant a public Commission of Inquiry. In the light of these allegations, we remain even more concerned for the safety of those who had informed us about the video in the event their names are given to the Agency.
We must not forget that there are many persons who are in power and who are connected to those in power who have an interest in the source not coming forward. Even if the identity of the source is revealed in confidence to the authorities, we are not confident that the safety of the source will not be subsequently compromised.
We reiterate our position as stated earlier – any issue that arises as to authenticity of the video clip is solved very simply, and it is no rocket science to figure this out. Give an appropriate copy of the video clip to a relevant expert in this field and s/he will in a matter of a few hours be able to confirm whether the video clip is an authentic recording or not. Such an expert will be able to do the job that this so-called independent panel has been appointed to do much more quickly, reliably and cheaply.
We can then get on with the far more important job of a Royal Commission into the practice of corruption and “fixing” of top judicial positions in the judiciary. We reiterate that the persons who brought the video clip to us will be able to speak publicly before a Royal Commission which will also give them full legal immunity under the law.
Parti Keadilan Rakyat