DAP's Kampung Tunku assemblyperson Lau Weng San has looked to the UK House of Commons to explain why Dewan Rakyat Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia's interpretation of sub judice is inaccurate.

The House of Commons Standing Orders clearly state that only "cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts" shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question, said Lau.

The Standing Orders also state that "where a ministerial decision is in question or in the opinion of the Chair, a case concerns issues of national importance" then reference to the issues or case may be made, he said.

Lau said these show that Pandikar's interpretation of sub judice is far from its true meaning, as interpreted in any Westminster-style Parliament.

"The paragraphs above clearly show that debates on an issue is only sub judice if the court proceedings related to the matter is still active in any domestic court in the UK.

"In Malaysia's context, it also means that the civil suits filed by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking the forfeiture of assets bought with stolen funds from 1MDB can still be raised in the Dewan Rakyat and is not sub judice, because the civil suits were filed in US and not in Malaysia," he said in a statement today.

But even if it might be sub judice, the Speaker can still allow the debate if it concerns public interest, he added.

Pandikar's interpretation seems to suggest that any case currently in court proceedings anywhere in the world cannot be brought up in the Dewan Rakyat, he said.

Despite this, the Speaker had allowed issues concerning flight MH17 and MH370 to be brought up in Parliament when the families of the victims had filed a suit against Malaysian Airlines Berhad in court, he said.

"It is the hope of all Malaysians that the Parliament, and the Dewan Rakyat specifically, play its role as a check and balance for the executive and not just function as a rubber stamp," he said.

Last Monday, Pandikar had told the House that ministers need not answer oral questions about the DOJ suits due to sub judice.

However, he clarified yesterday that his previous sub judice ruling was only on the 33 oral questions that had already been submitted, and that he had misspoken when he told the media the ruling applied to the debates.