Bar Council chairperson Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari today refuted accusations by a lawyer that the council is not interested in monitoring inquests into custodial death cases and said past omissions were due to resource limitations.

In a letter faxed to malaysiakini , Kuthubul drew attention to a complaint by lawyer P Uthayakumar who took the Bar Council chief to task for failing to send lawyers to hold watching briefs during the inquests into the cases of S Tharma Rajen, M Ragupathy and G Veerasamy.

Uthayakumar had demanded Kuthubul to explain the council's "indifference" or face a motion of censure or no confidence at the Malaysian Bar's annual general meeting next month.

"I refer to your Feb 11 article which, among others, conveyed an impression that the Bar Council is unconcerned with inquests into cases of custodial deaths based on allegations made by Mr Uthayakumar. I wish to correct that impression," said Kuthubul.

"I emphasise that the Bar Council is indeed concerned about issues relating to deaths in police custody. We have from time to time raised this issue with the Inspector General of Police and the Attorney-General and urged their serious attention," he said.

Kuthubul explained the said circumstances which resulted in the council's failure to hold watching briefs were more due to the lack of available lawyers at the time of the inquests.

"The ability to have a counsel hold a watching brief in every case of public interest boils down to the availability of resources.

"There are members who question the necessity or desirability of doing so as they feel that such resources can be better utilised elsewhere since most of the time the counsel holding watching brief is not invited to give input or to participate in the proceedings," he said.

Pupil's role

However, addressing Uthayakumar's grouses, Kuthubul said that in the case of the Tharma Rajen inquest, the Bar Council had appointed a counsel who held a watching brief in parts of the proceedings.

"When that counsel was not available, another counsel went in his place. Due to an oversight, the counsel did not appear on one of the hearing days. This incident in no way suggests lack of interest on the part of the Bar Council," he said, adding that a letter of explanation had been sent to Uthayakumar.

Similarly, Kuthubul said the Bar Council could not send a representative to the Feb 10 inquest of Veerasamy because it had received too short a notice for the hearing to find an available lawyer.

"The Bar Council was informed of the (inquest) only the evening before. Despite such extremely short notice, we tried to get a counsel to appear. We called 16 lawyers but unfortunately, no one could make it."

Responding to another complaint by Uthayakumar over the presence of a chambering student at the May 29, 2003, case mention of Tharma Rajen and Ragupathy, Kuthubul said that there was nothing wrong with the pupil's presence since the Legal Profession Act (LPA) allows for students to appear before any magistrate.

"The Bar Council had requested another counsel to appear. However, he was engaged in another case and had asked a chambering pupil in his firm to appear.

"The counsel did not see anything improper since the pupil was at the material time already entitled (under the LPA) to appear before any magistrate to conduct any cause or matter.

"Moreover, we are informed that the date was only a mention date and it was known beforehand that no hearing would take place on that day," he said.

Protecting lawyers

Contacted later, Uthayakumar confirmed that he received a letter from the Bar Council chief but said he was still considering whether to call for the motion of censure against Kuthubul.

"If they want to create an excuse, they can come out with 1,001 different ones. If the council lacks resources or cannot get lawyers to appear pro bono, it should consider paying for lawyers to attend," he said.

Meanwhile, Uthayakumar's lawyer M Manoharan also expressed dissatisfaction with Kuthubul's explanation for sending a chambering student for the May 29 case.

He said another important development on that day was that a criminal intimidation case filed by the police against Uthayakumar was also slated for mention at the same magistrate's court in Sepang.

Uthayakumar had been charged with the offence for allegedly threatening a police officer during the Tharma Rajen inquest.

"The Bar Council was set up specifically to protect the interests of lawyers. If a member of the Bar is charged in court, the council should at least ensure that one of its members appear in court.

"If something had happened such as a re-arrest (of Uthayakumar), the chambering student would not have been able to handle the situation," he said.

He said Kuthubul should resign for failing to take action in protecting lawyers' interests.