In a move that could further upset the Bar Council, lawyer R Sivarasa has been summoned by the police to give a statement on the ongoing probe into private investigator P Balasubramaniam.

Sivarasa is the fourth lawyer to be hauled up by the police in cases relating to Subramaniam.

judiciary forum lingam tape 171107 sivarasa Sivarasa, also the PKR vice-president, has been asked to present himself at the Commercial Crimes Investigation Department (CCID) in Jalan Dato Onn in Kuala Lumpur at 10am tomorrow.

Previously the Bar Council had expressed its concern over the number of lawyers being summoned for questioning in relation to Balasubramaniam's cases.

The police are presently investigating Balasubramaniam's statutory declaration in which he claimed that Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak was linked to the killed Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu.

However just as he had shocked the nation with his revelations, he caused another jolt by retracting his first statutory declaration on the very next day and stated that all allegations concerning the deputy premier were inaccurate.

In his second declaration dated July 3, he claimed that the first was made under duress.

Following this, he left the country with his wife and three children.

The police are also investigating the private eye's absence along with his family.

Attempt to intimidate

Sivarasa was involved when Balasubramaniam announced the details of his first statutory declaration on July 2 at a press conference at the PKR headquarters in Tropicana, Petaling Jaya.

Prior to Sivarasa, the police have taken statement from lawyers Americk Singh Sidhu, N Surendran and M Puravalen.

Americk was Balasubramaniam's lawyer when he made the first statutory declaration. Both Surendran and Puravelan represented Balasubramaniam's family members who had lodged a missing persons report after the private eye and his family went missing.

puravalen pc on missing pi balasubramaniam 180708 s ambiga After Puravalen's session with the police on July 18, the Bar Council remarked that the police were attempting to intimidate lawyers into revealing confidential information.

"The police are aware of the law. (They know) this is a question of privilege and that the information cannot be disclosed. So what is the reason for calling in the lawyers if it is not to intimidate?" council chairperson S Ambiga ( right ) had asked then.

"We see it as an act that interferes with the independence of lawyers. We see it as an act of intimidation and an act which could amount to threatening lawyers into revealing information.

"It is an inference in the whole criminal justice system if lawyers are not free and cannot act in the interest of the client," she added then.