My letter was duly received and acknowledged by the Bar Secretariat at 1.45pm today.
As the letter is marked ‘Private and Confidential’, I do not propose to link a PDF copy of the same here. Instead, I will reproduce below, an excerpt fr0m the same.
I have omitted mention of the name here.
In the FMT report, Mr. Lim is said to have “lamented that until today, the identities of the said lawyer (s) have not been established, as a video recording of an interview with Deepak bleeped out the names” and then gone on to malign the character of Deepak by saying that his “background is cause for concern”.
Has the Bar Council investigated the background of this Deepak such that the president can now publicly call into question his credibility, or is this based on market talk or what is written in cyberspace?
A cursory investigation into all that Deepak has disclosed of late would have revealed to the Bar Council that he is presently involved in a civil suit and is represented by Mr. R. Sivarasa and Mr. N. Surendran.
From the FMT report, the Bar Council has noted that Deepak disclosed the name(s) of the solicitors during his interview but the video recording of the same deleted or muted the relevant part of the sound track.
Has it therefore not dawned on the Bar Council to call on Mr. Sivarasa or Mr. Surendran to seek their assistance to obtain the co-operation of their client to now disclose the name of the solicitor(s) to the Bar Council?
Instead, the president sees fit to publicly malign the character of the one person who might be able to immediately assist the Bar Council if it chose to investigate this matter?
Based on market talk or what is written in cyberspace?
This same source, then, would have given the Bar Council a lead on who the solicitor(s) in question is / are.
In my earlier letter abovementioned, I had narrated 17 sets of facts before I posited two questions which I felt were of importance. I now reproduce the second question hereinbelow and request that the Bar Council, pursuant to its powers under section 57(b) of the Legal Profession Act, 1976, publicly clarify the matters raised in my question.
The question :
Given that by the terms of SD2, Bala would be admitting to an offence of swearing out a prior false statutory declaration, was it not incumbent upon the solicitor(s) concerned in its preparation to have taken instructions from Bala and to have warned him of the consequences of affirming the statutory declaration that was being drawn up for his affirmation?
Finally, with a view to putting the Bar council out of its present dilemma, I wish to inform you that, based on information I have received, the solicitor in question is @#$%^&*().