Under duress when he swore the SD, yes, but when? 1st July or 4th July?

Imagine for a moment that Bala’s revelation yesterday was not by way of an SD at a PC, but by way of oral testimony at the ongoing murder trial in Shah Alam.

Then imagine that his bombshell today, too, was not by way of an SD at yet another PC, but at a continuation of his testimony in that murder trial.

What is the presiding judge to make of all this?

Believe Bala’s testimony on day 1 or that on day 2?

Or reject his testimony in toto?

It would seem apparent that the witness has been subjected to some external pressure, either before day 1, or before day 2, of the evidence-taking process. This would amount to an interference with the due process of the court.

An offence, surely!

By whom?

And why?

To aid the court in coming to a conclusion on these pressing questions, ought not counsel for the prosecution seek clarification from Bala as to his whereabouts between the close of proceedings on day 1 and the commencement of day 2?

Who was he with?

What did he do?

Ought not counsel for the prosecution seek clarification from Bala as to how he was subjected to duress before day 1? Who did it? When? Where? How?

Should not counsel for the prosecution elicit clarification from Bala about the overnight change of solicitor? How long has he known his new solicitor? How long did he know his previous? How did the first solicitor come to be appointed? Why did he not continue with the first? Was the first aware of the circumstances in which he came to make the first SD? Did the first draw up the first SD? If so, was it on Bala’s own instructions? When precisely was the second instructed to appear with Bala today?

Now, assuming after all this clarification is obtained, the presiding judge decides at the end of the trial to either reject Bala’s day 1 evidence, or day 2 evidence, or reject all of Bala’s evidence. And let’s say there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the final decision of the judge after trial.

The Court of Appeal would also have to deal with the matter of the rejection of Bala’s testimony, whether in toto or in part.

Now, practising lawyers will tell you that on an appeal after trial, appellate judges are extremely reluctant to interfere with the trial judge’s finding with regards to the acceptance or rejection of witnesses testimony.

And it almost always is because the trial judge had the opportunity to witness the demeanour of the witnesses during the evidence-taking process whilst the appellate judges did not.

The appellate judges only have the transcript of the notes of proceedings without the benefit of observing the witness in the witness box.

This is important.

I was at the PC yesterday. Many of you were not there.

I was able to observe Bala’s demeanour at the PC yesterday. Most of you could not.

You can try to get the next best thing, though.

Watch the video clip of the PC yesterday.

If you’re short on time, I’d recommend the first (Malaysiakini) video clip, from the eighth minute on, so that you do not have to endure listening to Anwar.

I’ve scoured the net to see if there is a video clip of the PC today, without success. If there is one out there that any of you know of, do let me know so that I can link it. It would be good for comparison with yesterday’s.

Star online reports today that ‘visibly perturbed Balasubramaniam remained mum on Friday when met by pressmen’, that Bala ‘refused to answer questions posed to him and left quickly after his lawyer distributed the second statutory declaration to reporters’ and that his new lawyer, Arulampalam, ‘also refused to entertain pressmen, giving only a brief statement that his client was under duress and that he was upset’.

Meanwhile, Malaysiakini also reports today that the lawyer who appeared with Bala at yesterday’s PC, Americk Sidhu, has denied that Bala was under any duress when he swore the first SD on 1st July that he met Bala about two months ago, and that yesterday, after the PC, before 5pm, Americk himself dropped Bala off at the Brickfields police station. In yet another Malaysiakini report, Americk is reported to have said that Bala got a call immediately after the PC yesterday, requesting him to attend at the police station and Americk advised him to comply with the request.

I also had the opportunity to observe Bala after the PC yesterday, away from the PKR HQ, and that additional observation has helped in my own assessment of his overall demeanour yesterday. I will not share this with you as it will mean your having to take my word rather than relying on your own assessment of the material I have assembled here as well as that available in public space.

So, yes, there was duress when Bala signed an SD, but was it on the 1st of July, or the 4th?

Think about it, and share your rational thoughts