BY invoking sub judice on parliamentary discussions on 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB), Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia has abused a legitimate legal proceeding for the state investor to escape public scrutiny, said lawyers.

Earlier today, Pandikar said discussions on 1MDB-related matters in Parliament had ended with a probe by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which tabled its report on 1MDB in April last year.

In defending his rejection of more than 30 questions by opposition lawmakers, Pandikar said discussions on the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) suit to seize 1MDB-related assets were sub judice.

“The speaker is being ridiculous. How can what’s being discussed in Parliament affect the DoJ suit?” said Eric Paulsen, executive director of Lawyers for Liberty.

“Sub judice is a convenient excuse, stretched to its absurd limit, to shut down discussions that put the government in a bad light.

“It is clear that he is using every trick up his sleeve to block questions on 1MDB from being asked.

“If he is interested in shedding light on 1MDB, the PAC report should, at the very least, be debated in Parliament. But clearly, he is not interested.”

The sub judice rule bars the discussion or publication of matters under consideration by the court.

Lim Wei Jiet, an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya, criticised Pandikar’s use of sub judice on an issue concerning a civil suit filed by a foreign enforcement agency.

“The concept of sub judice is less applicable in a civil suit, where there is no jury, with a sitting judge who determines the matter at hand.

“It is far-fetched to say that a judge would be influenced by external factors, instead of the evidence adduced before the court, in adjudicating a dispute.

“It is even more far-fetched (in this case), considering that the 1MDB issue has been widely covered by the media, like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

“A debate by opposition MPs in faraway Malaysia would hardly rock the boat, in comparison.”

Sub judice does not prevent the news reporting of ongoing judicial proceedings as long as the media does not usurp the court’s role by prejudging a case or its legal issues.

Lim said the concept of sub judice was not only to prevent a party determining a court dispute from being influenced by external factors, but was also meant to protect the sanctity of the court and prevent other organisations from “encroaching” into the functions of the court.

Constitutional lawyer Syahredzan Johan said the sub judice rule was to prevent court proceedings from being compromised by matters discussed outside the courtroom.

“It is in place because of jury trials, where the jury might be influenced or compromised by what they see or hear outside the court.

“In Malaysia, we do not have jury trials, so sub judice is less relevant here.

“More importantly, the DoJ proceedings are in the US. So, the US courts are the ones that should decide whether something is sub judice, and not the speaker here.

“This is another example of the charmed existence of 1MDB and Jho Low. Democracy takes a back seat, as 1MDB and Jho Low take precedence.”

Azmi Sharom, an associate professor of law at Universiti Malaya, said sub judice was a legitimate legal proceeding that was abused by Pandikar.

“Don’t tell me every single question posed by MPs is sub judice.

“(DAP Puchong MP) Gobind Singh Deo had asked about the status of the investigation. How can that be sub judice?

“It’s being used as an excuse to block all talk on 1MDB.

“Even if we assume that it was sub judice… even if we give Pandikar that incredible benefit of the doubt, I cannot see what bearing it has on the case (in the US).

“It does appear that Pandikar is using a big legal term to do a cover-up.” – July 27, 2017.