It’s been almost 14 months since the disciplinary committee of the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board heard the misconduct complaint filed against senior lawyer Cecil Abraham.

However, it is understood that the committee is yet to submit its findings to the board.

Cecil has been implicated as the lawyer who drafted the second statutory declaration of the late private investigator P Balasubramaniam, who was a witness in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial.

Balasubramaniam was hired by political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda to stop Altantuya in 2006.

A source familiar with the disciplinary proceedings said the hearing of the case ended in December 2014, with some 15 witnesses called.

“Submissions have already been made and till today I understand the committee is yet to submit its report on the findings against Cecil ( photo ) to the board,” the source told Malaysiakini .

“That is the stage where we are at now, awaiting the committee's findings to be filed with the board,” the source added on condition of anonymity.

The board is chaired by retired Court of Appeal judge Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad.

Rule 17 of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) of the Investigating Tribunal and Disciplinary Committee Rules states that the committee is supposed to state the findings of fact and the recommendations of the investigating tribunal and it shall be signed by the chairperson of the tribunal.

However, it is understood that the three-man committee of two lawyers and a layperson, headed by senior lawyer KY Foo, did not hear evidence from controversial carpet businessman Deepak Jaikishian.

“He avoided being served with the subpoena,” added the source.

Deepak ( photo ) has given interviews with PAS journal Harakah , and Malaysiakini as well, claiming his role in getting Balasubramaniam's first statutory declaration overturned and said that he regretted it.

In the first statutory declaration made in July 2008, Balasubramaniam alleged that then Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak knew Altantuya. The private investigator retracted this claim in his second SD.

Lawyers’ motion against second SD

Three years ago, 14 lawyers, led by Wan Hidayati Nadirah Wan Ahmad Nasir, submitted a motion at the annual general meeting of the Malaysian Bar in March 2013, calling for an independent committee to be set up to investigate the circumstances surrounding Balasubramaniam’s second SD.

At the AGM, senior lawyer Americk Sidhu revealed that Cecil admitted to him that he (Cecil) drafted the second affidavit on the instructions of Najib.

This resulted in the Malaysian Bar, then under Christopher Leong, to lodge a formal complaint against Cecil to the board, resulting in the investigation by the disciplinary committee.

However, Najib has, on many occasions, denied knowing Altantuya.

Americk was one of the first witnesses to testify in the Disciplinary Board’s hearing, which began in March 2014, and also saw a change in the officer representing the Malaysian Bar, from Lambert Rasaratnam to Bastian Vendargon.

Section 103 of the Legal Professions Act 1976 states that the disciplinary committee shall record the facts of the case and make one of three recommendations to the board.

  • That no cause of action could be taken;

  • That while there is no gravity for disciplinary action, the lawyer be reprimanded; and

  • There is sufficient merit in the complaint and the lawyer shall be subjected to one of the following, namely:
    1. The imposition of a fine;

  • Suspension from practice for a stipulated period; or

  • Be struck off the rolls as an advocate and solicitor.

    • While it remains uncertain when Foo, who heads the disciplinary committee, will submit the report to the board, it is understood that he could write to the board to seek extension.

    Rule 26 of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) (Investigating Tribunal and Disciplinary Committee) Rules 1994 states that the committee shall state the findings of fact and recommendations of the committee within two months from the date of appointment and it can be extended by the chairperson of the Disciplinary Board if there exists reasonable grounds to do so.

    The decision of the disciplinary committee is based on the majority decision of its three members.