Some thoughts on the Bar Council AGM 16 March 2013

 

But what concerns me is that [Americk] Singh’s statement was accepted as the gospel truth by the all the lawyers present without any verification or collaboration. 

Desiderata 

The Bar Council AGM was certainly one of more exciting meetings in the history of the Malaysian Bar, particularly the revelations by Americk Singh Siddhu, who rose to prominence for drafting SD 1.

But what concerns me is that Singh’s statement was accepted as the gospel truth by the all the lawyers present without any verification or collaboration. Singh claimed he met Abraham at a restaurant, where he confessed to drafting SD 2 at the behest of the Prime Minister.

Singh also maintained that this was done in the presence of another lawyer who accompanied him (ie Singh). Why did not this lawyer speak up and collaborate Singh’s accusation?

Just going by Singh’s statement is surely not enough to set up a disciplinary proceedings against Abraham. Why did Singh not name his collaborator? His case would have been stronger!

Deepak Jaikishen has so far refused to co operate with the Bar Council.

By a strange turn of fate, PI Bala, Singh’s star witness has gone to meet his Maker.

Should not the newly elected Bar Committee have written to Abraham and given him two weeks to reply, which is normal procedure. Based on just Singh’s statement the committee decided to refer Abraham to the Disciplinary Committee. Singh is being considered by the Bar Committee to be the fount of truth and all moral authority.

Further, Abraham is not even given the courtesy of the right to reply.

Those, particularly in the legal fraternity who know Abraham well would vouch that Abraham and Singh are not fraternity buddies or have legal matters in common to discuss.

They would also vouch Abraham is capable of keeping his own counsel and it is very unlikely that ‘he would apologise to Singh and presumably to his silent collaborator too, and confess that he drafted SD 2’ as claimed by Singh. In the first place, why should Abraham apologise to Singh?

It is not surprising that the new committee and particularly the Chairman, Christopher Leong, are eager to show themselves as being pro active.

Nailing Abraham may be a feather in your cap, Mr President, but at least follow the set procedures. Crying aloud for justice is good, but justice must be also seen to be done, for all parties concerned. Is not the axiom, ‘a man is innocent until proven guilty” one of the first things taught in Law School?

Please be more considered in your actions, less haste and impulsiveness would augur a good year for the new President and his committee. Best of Luck!