Former Bar Council president Datuk S Ambiga dogged to abstain from any comments after a shocking declaration that she was linked by Sarawak Report chief editor Clare Rewcastle as her main informer in facing PAS legal suit. Claire Rewcastle admitted meeting Ambiga in July last year, she informed her about the dealing out of 1MDB funds between PAS and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.The reason is said that since the case is still in progress in London court and may lead to sub judice or interrupt the London court process. Is it so? Yet, Ambiga’s excuses are disputed by some local lawyers since she has no basis to invoke sub judice.
Ambiga excuses are deftly disputed by some local lawyers when she has no basis to invoke sub judice. Perhaps the ordinary people may not understand what is sub judice meant but for those who are well-informed about the laws, as PAS legal suit on Claire Rewcastle is done in London, therefore sub judice will only be applicable and valid until PAS president Hadi Awang decided to take the case to Malaysia. Only then Ambiga could excuse from any comments.
It is true that if anyone cites a comment on cases that are still on trial in court it is considered sub judicial and possibly an act of contempt of court. On the same note, let us not forget that when Ambiga was the president of the Bar Council, she often defended the public rights to discuss pending court cases and demanded that it should not be sub judice or contempt. Do we not see her hypocrisy?
We know that Ambiga is trying to avoid responding to Claire Rewcastle’s disclosure and for that, she wants everyone to believe that it is sub judice that eventually no one dares to talk and discuss it openly. But her excuses are also disputed by High Court Judge S. Nantha Balan in his statement as such;
“Debates on important public issues such as this should not be stifled and sacrificed on the altar of sub judice”. With this, it clearly shows that Ambiga backed her excuses on sub judicial when she is inflicted and will be double-standard if the court cases are capable of fulfilling her own interests.
Sarawak Report’s allegations are serious enough to be dealt with by the government and the ruling party Barisan Nasional as it involves the nation’s and Prime Minister Najib Razak’s reputation when it is linked to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) funds with other parties. For many years the government has repeatedly demanded Clare Rewcastle to disclose her sources but when pressured by London High Court, she is left with no choice but to name Ambiga.
After all, Ambiga would not know what is going on in 1MDB unless she obtained her information from within the organisation. Similarly in PAS too. Whoever the whistleblower is or are to Ambiga, all that needs to be investigated unless whatever handed to Clare Rewcastle are fabricated documents from Ambiga.
When Ambiga’s name appeared as Clare Rewcastle’s main sources, it is crucial that the government ensures that all those charges are merely based on facts and not unsubstantiated documents or rumours and hearsay, just like what Ling Liong Sik had produced in court. Most likely, Ambiga pretends not to understand London as well as in Malaysia legal procedures or perhaps she is trying very hard to take heed that she may face libel suit from PM Najib and PAS President Hadi Awang?