A motion of no confidence raised against Bar Council chairperson Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari was shot down by members during a heated meeting at the council's office in Kuala Lumpur today.

Met later, council vice-president Yeo Yang Poh said it was an "overwhelming" rejection but declined to elaborate on what transpired at the monthly meeting, which lasted for more than four hours.

However, it was learnt that of the 32 council members present, 23 voted against the motion, six for it while three abstained. The votes were cast at about 1pm.

The motion was raised by veteran lawyer and council member Manjeet Singh Dhillon, who yesterday accused the chairperson ( left ) of allegedly violating the Legal Profession Act during the previous council elections.

He claimed that Kuthubul had breached the Act by personally collecting the postal votes and that he had admitted to this during last month's council meeting.

According to him, the ballots should not be collected by any individual but should be posted directly to the Malaysian Bar office in Kuala Lumpur.

The Bar Council elections is conducted entirely through postal ballots. The 36-member council represents the 11,000-strong Malaysian Bar.

'It's politics'

Ruling out an investigation on the matter, Yeo said the allegation against the chairperson was "uncalled for" and "unsubstantiated".

"Bar Council is of the view that the chairperson has not done anything improper. Bar Council takes exception in the manner in which the allegation is made because we have more important things to do such as to make contributions to the Police Royal Commission," he added.

The vice-president was referring to an ad-hoc committee set-up during this morning's meeting to assist Kuthubul, who was appointed as one of the 16 commissioners to the royal commission.

"We have so many other important things to deal with rather than spending time on politics. Yes, I would say it is politics, but I wouldn't know whether there is any hidden agenda," he added.

Elaborating, Yeo stressed that the council was of the view that Kuthubul had not violated Section 50 of the Act, as alleged.

"It is rather ridiculous to interpret that if a member who is asked by another member to do him a favour to bring back the ballot papers to the Bar Council is wrong," he added.

He said if this was the situation, then all the postal ballots cast during the general elections would be considered void.

On Manjeet's warning that he would bring the matter to court if the council failed to act, he said it was the former's privilege to do so.

Legal action

Contacted later, Manjeet said he would pursue legal action before the council's annual general meeting scheduled for March 20 because the council should not "arbitrarily interpret the law".

"Postal ballot is postal ballot, unless we amend the law," he said.

"Obviously, the Bar Council's interpretation suggests that a pigeon carrier of postal ballots will be qualified under Section 50," he added.

According to the veteran lawyer, there was another motion which was raised during the meeting on preventing council members from collecting postal votes, but this was also rejected.

"This means that council members are allowed to collect postal ballots from next time," he said, adding that he was pleased with today's outcome since there were other lawyers who shared his view.

Manjeet had contested in the last polls but failed to retain a seat in the council. Twelve members were elected but the veteran lawyer ranked at14.

He was also the secretary of the Bar Council during the 1988 judiciary crisis and was cited for contempt over his role in the open confrontation between the Bar and the judiciary.

Kuthubul could not be reached for comment.