A group of lawyers are attempting to revive a failed requisition seeking a general meeting to consider, among other matters, censuring current office bearers' alleged unprofessional conduct in dealing with the High Court decision to declare the Bar Council annual meeting invalid.

The requisition which was submitted to Bar Council president Yeoh Yang Poh last week failed when five of the 50 lawyers who supported the notice withdrew their names at the eleventh hour.

Notice of requisition can only be considered after it is signed by at least 50 members of the Malaysian Bar as required under Section 65 of the Legal Profession Act 1976.

A senior lawyer who requested anonymity told malaysiakini that it would not be a problem for him and other supporters of the requisition to solicit support from at least 10 lawyers to replace the five.

"Once we get the signatures, we will issue an extension letter and place it together with the other signatories," he said.

"If signatories are allowed to withdraw, then we should be allowed to add signatures. If we are not allowed to do this, then we will go to court on that point."

Asked why the five had withdrawn, the legal practitioner from Kuala Lumpur said he suspected that they were uncomfortable with one of the motions - to censure principal office bearers including Yeoh, vice-president Ambiga Sreenevasan, secretary Ragunath Kesavan, treasurer Vazeer Alam Akhbar and immediate past president Khutubul Zaman Bukhari.

'Not a vendetta'

On May 27, Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Raus Sharif declared that the Bar's 59th Annual General Assembly (AGM) "null and void" due to the absence of quorum.

He made the ruling when allowing the application of senior lawyer Louise Edward Van Buerle who took the Bar Council to task for contravening the one-fifth quorum requirement stated in the LPA.

He however allowed stay of execution of its decision which also nullified the appointment of office bearers, but let them continue managing the Bar as caretakers.

The appeal against his decision is currently being heard at the Court of Appeal, with submissions to continue tomorrow.

On the requisition, the senior lawyer stressed that efforts to hold the meeting are not a personal vendetta against the council members but intended to "put things right in the running of the Bar".

"If you read the requisition, you will see what we are aiming at. Council members cannot make unilateral decisions, as these affect the majority of the members of the Bar. This is (our) basic argument."

When contacted, Yeoh said he respected members' rights to express their views, but said he believed the motions stated in the requisition were "misguided" and are therefore baseless.

"Contrary to what the motions suggest, certain members in the council did not decide to appeal in a unilateral manner. Of course there was no poll or referendum to decide on the appeal. But the administration of the Bar lies with the council, which represents everyone," he said.

"We had a discussion and all views were heard. In the end, there was a unanimous decision to appeal."

Different views

However, the senior lawyer believed that not everyone sitting within the council had agreed to the filing of the appeal.

"What we were told was that not all had agreed to the appeal. The caretaker president can say that (all had agreed). But if he is found to be wrong, we will take him to task."

He further said that members had yet to overcome their anger and disappointment over the council's decision to proceed with the 59th AGM without a quorum when they were hit by the decision to appeal against the High Court ruling that nullified the AGM.

"Many including senior and respected members like Raja Aziz (Addruse, photo right ), Param (Cumarasamy, photo left ) and Zainur (Zakaria) disagreed with the decision to hold the AGM without a quorum, but they (council members) went ahead," he added.

"They said they had called for two differing opinions from the lawyers (on whether an AGM requires a quorum) and then decided on their own. I think we (members of the Bar) have the right to see the opinions."

On the council's decision to appeal to the Court of Appeal, he said many felt that it was not a wise decision because it would not only extend the Bar's predicament but also incur costs.

"Of course at the high court, Van Buerle did not ask for costs, but he can seek this at the Court of Appeal. If he wins (and asks for) let's say, RM200,000, who is going to pay?" he asked.

"Will this be taken from the council, which is our money? I don't think that is fair. Why don't they pay from their own pockets because they are the ones who decided to appeal."