'No basis' to close PI Bala's double SD case

Opposition MPs today slammed the government for wrongly interpreting the law in its decision not to charge private investigator P Balasubramaniam for allegedly making a false statement in his two statutory declarations.

Tian Chua (PKR-Batu) said the reasons given by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Aziz were unacceptable as the Attorney General's chambers merely made its recommendation to close the case based on "assumptions".

"The government says there is no case, but what does that mean? Does that mean the contents of the SD are untrue?

"If they say there is no basis to the SDs, then the government should take action against PI Bala because his statements sullied the name of a national leader and the government," Chua said at a press conference in the Parliament lobby.

Chua (left) was responding to a written response by Nazri on the status of the probe into the private eye's double SDs.

In the written answer handed out to MPs yesterday, Nazrirepeated that the AG decided not to pursue the case further as the two conflicting SDs would have "no effect" on the Altantuya Shaaribuu murder trial.

The minister did explain, however, that the AG's decision was based on a precedent set in an earlier case involving the admission of a SD as evidence, in that it is only an offence to make a false statement in a declaration if it is used in a court of law.

'SDs were not made for court'

Quoting Sadhu Ram vs Shyam Sunder Gupta 1974 CLR 88, the judgement read: "The essential element of the offence under Section 199 (of the Penal Code) is that the declaration containing the false statement must be one which a court of justice or any public servant or other person is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact."

For Balasubramianiam (right) to be charged, it must be proven that the contents of his SD are not only false but also legally admissible as testimony in a court of law, Nazri added.

"However, the statutory declarations made by P Balasubramaniam were not intended to be used as testimony in any proceedings."

PKR parliamentarian for Subang R Sivarasa said Nazri's explanation was unacceptable as it was a gross misinterpretation of the law.

Sivarasa stressed that the clause raised by the minister to justify the government's decision does not apply as he claimed it is not even mentioned in Section 199 of the Penal Code, under which Balasubramaniam's case was investigated for making a false statement.

"The minister said the SDs were not made to be used as evidence in any proceeding as grounds to close the case, but this (clause) is not even stated in Section 199. You don't have to file a statutory declaration as evidence in a court of law (to be an offence)," he said.

Sivarasa echoed Tian Chua's stance, and stressed that the AG had no legal basis to close the investigation. - Malaysiakini