Contrary to what some parliamentarians have said, the police have adequate reasons to investigate three ex-ministers under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) and Sedition Act, says inspector-general of police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar.

"What's been said by several MPs, including (Puchong MP) Gobind Singh, that we have no basis to investigate is incorrect, because there are elements of sedition that has been done by these three former ministers," Khalid told a press conference at the Bukit Aman police headquarters today.

He was referring to former deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin, former rural and regional development minister Shafie Apdal and former finance minister II Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah.

Several MPs have cited parliamentary immunity as the reason why the probe into the three ex-ministers was unconstitutional, but Khalid reminded that the immunity did not extend to the Sedition Act.

"There is enough reason for us to investigate what they've said even if it was in Parliament because the Sedition Act doesn't give them immunity to make whatever statement, even in Parliament."

Khalid said the Sedition Act could be used because the ministers were "revealing" things about 1MDB and Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's supposed wrongdoings, even though the state investment fund was still under investigation.

"That is clearly an act of trying to incite people into thinking that the prime minister committed crimes, even though the investigation (into 1MDB) is not completed yet," the IGP said.

It was reported earlier that the three former ministers would be called in soon to give their statements to the police for allegedly breaking their oaths of secrecy while debating the 2017 budget.

Previously, Dewan Rakyat speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia said Husni, Muhyiddin and Shafie may have breached their oaths by revealing cabinet discussions.

All three had touched on 1MDB during the debates.

Husni was supposed to have his statement recorded on Monday, though it was later postponed to a date yet to be confirmed. 

Not seditious to ridicule PM

In an immediate reaction, Padang Serai parliamentarian N Surendran said that the IGP is wrong to think that the Sedition Act is to protect the PM from ridicule and accusations.

Noting that the IGP's basis for saying that the ex-ministers statements may be seditious is: "that it is clearly an act of trying to incite people into thinking that the prime minister committed crimes", Surendran argued that the police chief is way off the mark.

"The IGP has completely failed to understand that the Sedition Act 1948 does not protect the prime minister," said Surendran.

He argued that Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act which defines what is a "seditious tendency", only criminalises seditious words uttered against the Rulers, the Government or the administration of justice.

Criticism or verbal attacks upon the Prime Minister do not fall within the ambit of the Sedition Act, said the lawyer, adding that if the PM is aggrieved by any accusations, his remedy is to file a civil defamation action against his accuser.

Surendran contends that as such police investigations into the parliamentary statements of the ex-ministers is without legal basis as they are protected by parliamentary immunity conferred by Article 63 of the Federal Constitution.