Gerakan Youth deputy chief Andy Yong today hit out at the decision to stop taking questions in Parliament on the RM2.6 billion donation scandal on grounds of sub judice or contempt of court.

"As the Bar has filed a judicial review on the attorney-general’s decision, some ministers are warning against people talking about it or any public discussion that can be subjudice or contempt of court.

"Indeed, sub judice is often cited when the Malaysian authorities issue a gag order, even when a subject matter is of public interest," Yong, a lawyer by profession, said in a statement.

He believes that the ministers are quite wrong to censor freedom of speech in such a manner, be it in the Parliament or in public.

"Malaysians, not to mention the judges of today, are of sufficient intelligence not to be easily influenced,. Any public opinion or report does not usurp the court's role by prejudging the case or its legal issues," Yong argued.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Azalina Othman Said ( photo ), who is in charge of charge of parliamentary affairs, yesterday cited Standing Order 23 (1)(g) to bar questions on the RM2.6 billion political donation from being raised in Parliament.

The standing order states that "a question shall not be so drafted as to be likely to prejudice a case under trial, or be asked to any matter which is sub judice".

Azalina justified this by pointing to the Malaysian Bar's filing of a judicial review on attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali's decision not to press charges against Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

Referring to the case, Yong pointed out that it is yet to be "under trial" and may be withdrawn or struck out before it is actually heard by the court.

"The sub judice rule does not prohibit fair and accurate reporting of the factual contents of any ongoing proceedings (which is not the case in this matter).

"Judicial precedents do not consider public opinions or reports as sub-judice. If it is a matter of public interest, it can be discussed at large, without the fear of being in contempt of court," he said in stressing that a fair comment does not prejudice a fair trial.

The sub judice rule was relevant in jury trials in the olden days, especially in criminal cases, where case laws held that judges in their decision should not be swayed by public opinion, Yong added.