The Kuala Lumpur High Court has dismissed the Bar Council’s appeal against a disciplinary board’s decision to clear senior lawyer Cecil Abraham of professional misconduct.

This was in relation to the lawyer’s supposed role in drafting the second statutory declaration of the late private investigator P Balasubramaniam.

“The court did not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board,” said Bar Council lawyer Lai Chee Hoe.

He was speaking to reporters outside the courtroom after the hearing in chambers presided by judge Hanipah Farikullah.

Lawyer Rishant Singh appeared for Cecil.

Lai said Rishant had applied for RM150,000 as cost, but the judge decided not to make any orders on cost saying the Bar Council was merely performing its duties under the Legal Profession Act 1976.

Lai said he would seek instructions from the Bar Council on whether to appeal against the dismissal.

Balasubramaniam had made his first statutory declaration on March 1, 2008 that among others implicated Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak in the murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu.

He made the second statutory declaration three days later to retract his first declaration, and subsequently fled the country. Upon his return to Malaysia almost five year later, he claimed the second declaration was made under duress.

Najib had repeatedly denied involvement in the murder.

At the Malaysian Bar’s 2013 annual general meeting, a group of 14 lawyers pressed the Bar Council to act over the second statutory declaration, saying that ‘preparation of SD2 may amount to acts of criminality under the Penal Code, including perjury, giving false information regarding an offence and obstruction of justice under Part XI of the Penal Code.

At the same meeting, Balasubramaniam’s lawyer Americk Sidhu claimed that Cecil had admitted to him that he was the one who prepared the second statutory declaration, upon Najib’s instruction.

However, a three-member panel of the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board cleared Cecil of wrongdoing on March 11 this year.

Among others, the panel members reportedly said the Bar had failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, and there was no direct evidence linking Cecil to the second statutory declaration.

In addition, it said Cecil should be given the benefit of doubt since the supposed admission to Americk was made over dinner drinks.

The Bar Council filed an appeal to the Kuala Lumpur High Court in April.