Former Bar Council chairman RR Chelvarajah said he was not referred to and neither did he give instructions on the defence to contest a suit filed against him and the Bar, the High Court heard today.

He added that he did not even see the defence filed by a team of solicitors appointed by the Bar.

Chelvarajah was giving evidence in a suit by lawyer K Rajasegaran claiming that a proposed extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to discuss judicial misconduct was ultra vires the Legal Profession Act.

"I did not see the defence. Instructions for the defence were given by Raja Aziz Addruse who was appointed by the Bar Council to be responsible; it was a collective matter," Chelvarajah said.

Rajasegaran's counsel DP Vijandran then pointed out to some of the pleadings included in the defence, in particular the defence of justification in calling for the EGM, and asked if Chelvarajah was aware that they were based on hearsay evidence.

Aware allegations untrue

Chelvarajah agreed that it was so and even admitted that he was aware that some of the allegations made against the judiciary were not true.

Vijandran referred to a paragraph in Chelvarajah's defence that quoted a statement from the International Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and asked if Chelvarajah was aware if the statement was true.

The statement by the international body questioned the logic of having a "newcomer to the bench", justice Augustine Paul, in hearing former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim's trial.

Chelvarajah said he knew that Paul was not a newcomer to the bench and that he had served as a Sessions Court judge for more than 25 years.

When asked why then he did not, as a Bar Council chairman, correct the statement made by the foreign body, Chelvarajah said: "This was a high-profile case which attracted attention, therefore any rebuttal on this perception should also be of such magnitude that it can attract international attention."

At this juncture justice RK Nathan asked if the Malaysian Bar was not well recognised at world stage to have made any rebuttals.

Put things right

Nathan also said that as the Bar Council chairman at that time, as well as someone who had testified to know Paul as being a judge for a long time, Chelvarajah should have taken it upon himself to put it right "this perception that Paul is eminently qualified to hear that case".

To another question, Chelvarajah said the council decided to call for the EGM after discussing at length several allegations of judicial misconduct as stated in an affidavit filed in a defamation suit by Insas Bhd against Asian Wall Street Journal reporter Raphael Pura.

He said the council met on Oct 2 last year and discussed various allegations on judicial misconduct but the main one that was recorded in the minutes of the meeting was that alleged in the affidavit.

The affidavit was also used as a part of the defence by the defendants.

Vijandran, referring to the use of the affidavit by the defendants to justify their call for the EGM, asked Chelvarajah if he was aware that discussing the matter referred to in the affidavit would amount to sub judice as the case was still pending.

To this Chelvarajah said he was not aware that the matter was on appeal, adding that if he had known that fact, he would still take legal advice on whether it will be sub judice to discuss the case.

Unverified allegations

He also said that he never denied that all particulars in his defence were solely and completely hearsay and were based on unverified, bare allegations.

Chelvarajah, however, disagreed that the Bar Council was aligning itself with subversive political elements to undermine the judiciary.

He also said the Bar Council has no agenda to pander to foreign interests in attacking the judiciary.

Chelvarajah also denied that he attacked the Malaysian judiciary of delivering decisions which "challenge logic or reason or result in injustice" in his speech given at the Commonwealth Law Conference last year.

He said his speech was not confined to the status of judiciary in Malaysia alone but extended to all Commonwealth countries.

Chelvarajah also said that the allegations against the judiciary were raised at the meeting on Oct 2 by Raja Aziz, who informed the council about the affidavit filed in Pura's case.

"He also had a copy of Pura's proposed amended statement of defence. This document and the affidavit were passed around for the members to see," he said.

He also said that he had not asked for sufficient evidence on the allegations before agreeing to call for the EGM. Accepted explanation

Earlier, council member R Rajasingam also said that he accepted Raja Aziz's explanation regarding the allegations and did not seek any other evidence.

"I accepted what Raja Aziz said. I had no reason to doubt otherwise. On hindsight, in view of the seriousness of the allegations, I should have seen or read the affidavit," he said.

He also said that subsequently he became aware that the affidavit was not filed by Pura but by his counsel.

He also said the council members unanimously agreed to call for the EGM to discuss judicial impropriety just based on the affidavit and without any other evidence.

Application dismissed

Earlier in the morning, the court of appeal dismissed an application by the defendants for a stay of proceedings pending their appeal.

The defendants had wanted to appeal a decision by Nathan to proceed with the trial by way of preliminary issues.

The Court of Appeal, consisting of justices Mokhtar Sidin, Kadir Sulaiman and Saari Mohd Yusoff, unanimously dismissed the application with costs.

In his suit, Rajasegaran claims 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.

Rajasegaran is represented by Vijandran and the defendants by Malik Imtiaz.

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

The hearing continues on Oct 19.