PKR vice-president Sivarasa Rasiah said that Nazri (pic) had given an inaccurate interpretation of the law which was “obviously wrong.”
PKR claimed today that Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz gave misleading information in Parliament about closing the case on private investigator P. Balasubramaniam.
PKR Information Chief Chua Tian Chang, or better known as Tian Chua, told reporters here that the answer of the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department to his question in Parliament contradicts the law.
“In a nutshell, Balasubramaniam’s case is completed and closed, so this is very weird because after so much publicity, in the end, without giving a reasonable excuse, the government said there is no case.
“If what Balasubramaniam had said was totally untrue, if what he had said was baseless, he should be taken action against because he has smeared the reputation of country’s leader,” he said.
In July 2008, Balasubramaniam created headlines when he made public his statutory declaration (SD) linking then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak with the murdered Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu, with several astounding assertions about the relationship conveyed to him by both Altantuya and Abdul Razak Baginda.
Barely 24 hours after making the serious allegations, he created a second round of shockwaves when he retracted his statutory declaration with a second statutory declaration, claiming that he was forced to make his earlier declaration under duress.
“If what (Bala) had said has truth in it, then we must investigate. We don’t know how the AG (Attorney-General) or how the government can say the investigation is completed and there is no more need to continue,” he said.
PKR vice-president Sivarasa Rasiah also pointed out that Nazri gave a misleading answer and an inaccurate interpretation of the law which was “obviously wrong.”
“After studying and taking into account all the testimonies collected by the police, the Attorney-General has decided to close the case because the two conflicting statutory declarations by P. Balasubramanian do not affect the Altantuya Shaaribuu trial case,” Nazri had said.
Sivarasah said there is no basis to close the case and he questioned the true motive behind it.
He highlighted that under Section 199 of the Penal Code, a “false statement made in any declaration ... is by law receivable as evidence.”
“This means whatever we say in court under oath, if we lie, that is perjury,” Sivarasah said.
Nazri had said that in order for a testimony to be considered under the section, it must not only be false, but also legally accepted by the court or anyone.
“However, the statutory declaration made by P. Balasubramaniam is not to be taken as testimony for any proceedings. To decide whether the purpose of the testimony is to be used in court, the content of the testimony has to be studied,” he had said.
Sivarasa said although the statutory declaration by Balasubramaniam was not used in any proceedings, it is not written under the section that that was one of the requirements.
“It was as if (Nazri) had changed the section, and brought in another element, that the statutory declaration has to be done for the purpose of testimony but the actual section did not mention that at all. The person who is making the statutory declaration does not have to have the intention that it will be used in court, for it to be an offence,” he said.
Nazri had said that the statutory declaration does not satisfy the need under Section 199 and Section 200 of the Penal Code; hence, it cannot be used.
“What PI Bala had said does not mean it cannot be received in court and Section 199 said nothing about the fact that the person making the statement must make it with the intention of it being used in court. So Minister Nazri has rewritten Section 199, created an element that does not exist and said because the element does not exist, therefore this gentleman cannot be prosecuted under section 199. We say the minister is misleading the public with this explanation.
“Which for us is nonsense that there is no basis for the reason not to prosecute if you can prove as you say, that Bala’s statement is actually false,” he said,
Sivarasah said it indicates that the government cannot prove that Balasubramaniam’s statement is false, and that they are not prepared to go to court to prove that it is false.
“You don’t have a basis and you’re trying to use a false legal reason to try to back out of having to prosecute PI Bala.
“You must remember that PI Bala has boldly written a public statement inviting the AG to prosecute him and this is a clear indication that they cannot prove that PI Bala’s statement is false,” he said.
