PKR vice-president R Sivarasa and party worker Sim Tze Tzin have refused to reveal the identity of the source behind the VK Lingam video despite a jail threat.

The duo revealed their stand after being interviewed for more than two hours at the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) office in Kuala Lumpur.

"We have declined to provide any information on the identity of the source on the basis that it might compromise their personal safety," said Sivarasa.

"Until the whistleblowers authorise us to reveal their identities, we will honour our promise to protect them," he added.

On Sept 20, Sivarasa and Sim lodged a report with the ACA calling for an investigation into the video that showed senior lawyer Lingam apparently brokering the appointment of 'friendly' judges with Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in 2002.

They were interviewed and asked to disclose the identity of the whistleblowers before being issued notices last week stating an ultimatum to divulge the details of the source by today or risk going to jail.

The notices stated that failure to comply with the demand would be a breach of Section 29 (c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997.

Under Section 58 of the same Act, offenders would be liable to a fine of no more than RM10,000 or a two-year jail term.

'Abuse of power'

Sivarasa and Sim submitted their statutory declarations in person this morning together with their lawyers, William Leong and Amer Hamzah Arshad.

In the statutory declarations, Sivarasa informed the agency that the notice compelling them to reveal their source was "wrong and an abuse of ACA powers" for several reasons.

Among them was that the notice was issued to them before any statement was recorded from Lingam or Ahmad Fairuz.

"Hence there was no basis whatsoever for any assumption on the part of the investigating officers that the video may not be an authentic recording," Sivarasa said.

He also said the ACA officers present did not reveal whether any statements were taken from the individuals named in the video.

Other reasons were that the ACA failed to consult technical experts to establish the authenticity of the video and that protection under Section 53 of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 only applied to an ACA officer after receiving information, not the whistleblower himself.

'Nazri confusing people'

Sivarasa also questioned the role that the ACA was playing in assisting the independent panel set up by the government to investigate the authenticity of the tape.

"( De facto law minister) Nazri Abdul Aziz said the ACA is assisting the panel but under the 1997 Act, the ACA cannot disclose their information to anybody.

"This raises doubts and questions as to what information the ACA has. Also, what is Nazri trying to say? He is confusing the people," he said.

Last week, Nazri said the ACA is assisting the panel led by former Chief Judge of Malaya Haidar Mohd Noor because it has the manpower and if the tape is authenticated, the panel will be dissolved and the prime minister will decide on the next step.

Asked if the agency will be taking any action against them for not revealing their source, Sivarasa said: "They didn't say yes or no, so we will wait and see what happens."

The duo were quizzed by ACA Special Action Branch enforcers Chuah Lay Choo and Premraj Victor from the Putrajaya headquarters.

Both officers declined to meet the press in a message conveyed by the clerk present.

Watch the two-minute video here.