The Bar Council was not concerned with the truth of any allegations pertaining to the judiciary as it did not have the power to investigate such allegations, a former Bar Council chairman said today.

RR Chelvarajah told the Kuala Lumpur High Court the council relied solely on allegations that were stated in an affidavit filed in a defamation suit and decided to call for an extraordinary general meeting to discuss the allegations based on that.

"We all relied on Raja Aziz Addruse who brought up the affidavit at the council meeting. The council members discussed at length the allegations in the affidavit as well as those highlighted in a proposed amended defence in the same case," he said.

The affidavit was filed by a counsel for Asian Wall Street Journal reporter Raphael Pura who was being sued by Insas Bhd for defamation. The affidavit contained several allegations of judicial misconduct. The allegations were also repeated in Pura's proposed amended defence.

No capacity, machinery, power

Chelvarajah said the council had no capacity, machinery and power to investigate the allegations made against the judiciary.

He was being re-examined by his counsel Malik Imtiaz in a suit in which Chelvarajah, the council and the Malaysian Bar are being sued by lawyer K Rajasegaran.

Rajasegaran is claiming that the proposed resolution, which among others calls for a royal commission of inquiry on judicial misconduct as contained in a notice dated Oct 12, 1999, and the EGM, were ultra vires the Legal Profession Act.

Chelvarajah said he, as the chairman then, had not asked for sufficient evidence for the allegations as the council, collectively, decided to call for the EGM after merely discussing the allegations.

He also said the council was not concerned about being sub judice in discussing the affidavit filed in an ongoing case.

Invite contempt

To this, justice RK Nathan stated a view to Chelvarajah that if the Bar Council itself was not concerned in being sub judice , it was then "blatantly inviting contempt proceedings against it".

Chelvarajah replied that the meeting was a closed-door affair, and furthermore, "We did not want to discuss the merits of the case." He also said the issue of whether it would be sub judice was not at all raised at the meeting.

"No one felt necessary to check. As for me, I did not know at that time the matter was on appeal," said Chelvarajah.

Chelvarajah also said he had not seen the defence on this matter before it was filed as the council had decided to let one of its senior members deal with it since it involved a collective defence of the three defendants.

"Subsequently, after the defence was filed, it was circulated to the council members and we all endorsed it," he said.

No political motive

Earlier, to questions by Rajasegaran's counsel DP Vijandran, Chelvarajah said repeated allegations would appear to be accepted as the truth.

"We did not want that to happen," he said.

He also dismissed a suggestion by Vijandran that the EGM was scheduled to be held on Nov 20 last year to coincide with the nomination day for the general elections.

Vijandran said the council wanted to provide ammunition for the opposition parties in the ensuing campaign. However, Chelvarajah said the date was chosen as "we did not get a venue for our original date which was Nov 13".

The council was not in a hurry to discuss the matter but had wanted to hold the EGM at some point of time, said Chelvarajah.

The Attorney-General's chambers is also holding a watching brief in the case, citing "public interest" for their presence as well as the fact that the council was being investigated by the police under the Sedition Act as a result of a police report lodged against it.

The hearing will continue on Nov 1.

Previous story

[#1]I was not consulted on defence against suit, says ex-Bar chief[/#], Oct 13