The PKR vice-president was referring to a statement by Jasa advisory panel member Tun Faisal Ismail Aziz today which had accused the former opposition leader’s criticism of former BNM assistant governor Abdul Murad Khalid’s statement to the RCI, as possibly contravening Section 12(2) of the Commission of Enquiry Act 1950.
The particular section states that “any person who threatens, insults or injures any person for having given evidence, or on account of the evidence which he has given before the Commissioners, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”
“I refer to Jasa’s claim today that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim may have ‘threatened’ a witness contrary to s.12(2) of the Commission of Enquiry Act 1950, in relation to the ongoing Forex losses RCI.
“The suggestion is baseless and absurd,” Surendran said in a statement.
He added that the comments made by Anwar on Aug 23 in the statement following Murad’s testimony on the first day of the RCI on Aug 21, was merely a rebuttal.
“It is a basic principle that a rebuttal of evidence can never amount to ‘threatening or insulting’ the witness.
“Anwar was the finance minister at the material time, and therefore an important potential witness,” Surendran said, adding that his client only made the statement as he was not even sure he would be given the chance to testify before the commission.
“Hence, as it was a matter of public interest, Anwar was compelled to state the truth of the matter by way of a statement to the public.”
Anwar was eventually called to testify before the commission on Sept 7.
“The attempt by Jasa today to compare Anwar’s statement with that of Jasa director-general Mohd Puad Zarkashi, who has been criticised for making a statement about a witness at the RCI, is thus totally misguided,” Surendran said.
Jasa chief Puad had released a statement last week criticising former minister Nor Mohamed Yakcop, who had claimed responsibility for BNM’s losses in the early 1990s in forex trading and said he did not inform then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar.
Puad had said it appeared from Nor Mohamed’s testimony that he was willing to be the scapegoat in an old scandal.
“He (Nor Mohamed) took responsibility for the huge losses, but denied that all decisions regarding the central bank’s forex trading in the 1990s were made solely by him.”
Puad also questioned whether Nor Mohamed was trying to avoid implicating Mahathir, who made him a special economic adviser to the prime minister in 2000, a post he held until the end of 2003.
His comments came under attack from legal minds, including former Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram and Mahathir’s lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri, who said Puad’s statement slandered and insulted the court.
Credibility of former Bank Negara senior official questioned at RCI