Press Statement by Teresa Kok, MP for Seputeh and DAP National Publicity Secretary on 8th October 8, 2007 in Kuala Lumpur
I am appalled to read the statement made by Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz that the informants of “Linggam” video clip can be accorded full government protection, including change of identities as stipulated under the Witness Protection Bill tabled recently in the Parliament.
The problem is, no such bill was tabled in the last sitting of this session of Parliament. What the Parliament has debated and passed was the Evidence of Child Witness Act 2007 and not the Witness Protection Bill.
I urged Datuk Seri Nazri to correct his statement immediately, so that it won’t mislead the public.
It is a positive move to give protection to witness as it is practiced almost every First World country. I hope the bill will be presented for debate when the Parliament resumes its sitting on 22 nd October 2007.
=========================
Mr Nazri, what witness protection bill?
Eyebrows were raised when de facto law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz said the Witness Protection Bill would ensure the confidentiality of witnesses.
However, critics are wondering how this is possible because the bill does not exist.
PKR president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail said there is no evidence of such a crucial bill being tabled in Parliament in the last sitting.
“My office had confirmed this fact with the Legal Division of the Parliament, that no such bill had been tabled for a first reading in the Lower House.
“The only bill which was tabled, debated and passed by the Lower House two sessions ago was the Evidence of Child Witness Bill 2007,” she said in a statement today.
Royal commission
Nazri reportedly said that the whistleblower in the scandalous VK Lingam video could be protected under the Witness Protection Bill tabled recently in Parliament.
He said the bill provided protection for witnesses so that their identities could be kept a secret, including administrative and other operations necessary to effect changes in their personal details.
Although Wan Azizah lauds the idea of having a Witness Protection Bill, she however maintained that a royal commission on inquiry is still the best forum to adjudicate on the controversial video.
The grainy eight-minute video showing senior lawyer Lingam apparently brokering the appointment of ‘friendly’ judges with Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in 2002 was released by PKR three weeks ago.
The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), which investigating the scandal, issued notices to two PKR members to reveal the whistleblowers. Failing which, they could be fined or jailed.
Fearing for the safety of the whistleblowers, PKR has insisted on a royal commission which has the authority to grant protection to witnesses that come forward with information.
Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang was also similarly baffled by Nazri’s reference to the Witness Protection Act, stating that no such bill had been tabled in Parliament.
“It is the height of irresponsibility for Nazri to give assurance of protection under a law which does not exist…” said Lim in a statement.
“…but it is an even greater height of irresponsibility to envision a scuttling of all investigations into the Lingam tape, its allegations of perversion of the course of justice and the rot of the judiciary in the past 19 years under a “No Source, No Case” scenario,” he added.
Check the facts
Also echoing Wan Azizah’s sentiments was former United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Param Cumaraswamy.
“What Witness Protection Bill or Act is Nazri referring to? From searches made there is no such legislation either passed by Parliament or even in a bill form before Parliament,” he said in a statement today.
He also advised Nazri as the minister in charge of legal affairs to exercise caution and check his facts before making public statements.
“Incorrect statements such as these could embarrass the government,” the former Malaysian Bar president added.
Meanwhile, parliamentarian Teresa Kok (DAP-Seputeh) said she was appalled with Nazri’s statement and urged the minister to correct it immediately in order not to mislead the public.
However, Kok welcomed the idea of having a Witness Protection Bill and hoped it would be tabled when Parliament resumes on Oct 22.
Quick appointment needed
The Bar Council also said that it was not aware of the existence of the Witness Protection Act as described by Nazri.
“The protection of witness as described by Nazri in the New Straits Times dated Oct 8 is not presently available under any legislation in Malaysia,” said Bar Council chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan in a statement.
There are however provisions under the 1957 Anti-Corruption Act that afford some protection to a witness but not to the extent mentioned by Nazri, she said.
She also said that discussion on the witness protection must not be allowed to distract any attention away from the scandal arising from the Lingam tape.
Ambiga also urged the government to immediately appoint the next Chief Justice as soon as Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim’s tenure ends at the end of this month.