POLICE have no legal basis to investigate prominent lawyer Ambiga Sreenevasan for allegedly causing public alarm in relation to a defamation suit regarding claims that PAS had received funding from Umno, said lawyers.

Lawyer Syahredzan Johan said it was “absurd” for police to carry out an investigation under Section 505(b) of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission Act 1998.

“This is a civil suit between two parties. It’s not a criminal investigation. The so-called ‘source of information’ was by way of an averment in a statement of defence in a civil suit.

“So, there is absolutely no reason why police need to start investigating Ambiga for what Clare (Rewcastle-Brown) averred in her statement of defence,” he told The Malaysian Insight.

Rewcastle-Brown, who is editor of whistle-blower website Sarawak Report, had named Ambiga as her source of information for an article she published last year, alleging that PAS had received money in exchange for support for ruling coalition Barisan Nasional.

The UK-based editor is being sued by the Islamist party’s president, Abdul Hadi Awang, for defamation.

Syahredzan said Rewcastle-Brown would be required to prove and establish the information that Ambiga had provided her.

“That has not been established yet. It is not proven yet, so on what basis are police taking action?”

Ambiga is being investigated for allegedly providing information to Rewcastle-Brown on senior PAS leaders having received large sums of money from Prime Minister Najib Razak, who is also Umno president.

The Malaysian Insight learnt that police began their investigation after a report was lodged by Umno Grassroots Movement chairman Zulkarnain Mahdar at the Sri Petaling police station on November 1.

As for the laws being used against Ambiga, Syahredzan said both sections did not apply to her case.

“It is information that Rewcastle-Brown allegedly received from Ambiga, and it is about money being paid. How can that possibly result in people committing crimes against the state?

“The article was published some time ago, and we don’t see people breaking the law because of that article. So, the elements of Section 505(b) are not there for police to use it.”

Syahredzan said elements in Section 233 of the MCMC Act criminalised online communication, and the person that posted or transmitted a particular communication.

“In this case, if there had been any crime committed at all, it would be by Rewcastle-Brown because she was the one who published the report, not Ambiga.

“(Ambiga) allegedly giving information to Rewcastle-Brown does not amount to an offence under Section 233, unless she had posted it online.

“I don’t see any legal basis for any investigation to be conducted.”

Lawyers for Liberty’s Eric Paulsen called the police investigation into Ambiga “bizarre and frivolous”.

“Surely, police must exercise a bit of discretion as not all police reports are credible for them to pursue. This is not legally sound.

“The statement attributed to Ambiga was found in the pleadings of a court case in the UK, filed by another person. What has that got to do with Ambiga, for her to be investigated?

“This investigation can also amount to the intimidation and harassment of a potential witness.

“The consequences are serious as police are investigating potential witnesses that some parties are unhappy with in a court proceeding,” said the legal rights group’s executive director.

In her statement of defence and counterclaim in Hadi’s suit, Rewcastle-Brown said she had spoken to Ambiga in July last year regarding Najib, state investor fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad and PAS.

“Ambiga had told the defendant that her sources, whom she said were reliable, estimated the amount that had been paid was around RM90 million,” said Rewcastle-Brown in her court filing dated October 11.

PKR lawyer N. Surendran said police’s investigation into Ambiga, who is also a human rights activist, was legally frivolous and had no legal or factual basis.

“A statement made by a litigant in a document filed in court cannot itself be the subject of a criminal investigation. This is fundamental.

“Secondly, the alleged statement contained in Rewcastle-Brown’s defence was not even made by Ambiga. It was made by Rewcastle-Brown, through her instructions to her solicitors, for the purpose of court proceedings.

“Under Malaysian law, and the law of every other civilised country, no one can be accused of a criminal offence for an act or omission committed by another party. This is also simple logic, and basic fairness.”

Surendran, who is also Padang Serai MP, said Ambiga’s alleged offence arose from court documents filed in the UK, and therefore, did not fall under the jurisdiction of Malaysian police.

He echoed the other lawyers’ sentiments, saying that since the dispute between Hadi and the Sarawak Report editor was a civil one, it had nothing to do with criminal law.

Ambiga has so far declined to comment on being named as Rewcastle-Brown’s informant, saying she was unable to comment on court proceedings in the UK. – November 10, 2017.