Commenting on the case of the statutory declaration made by private investigator P. Balasubramaniam linking Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak with Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu, Bar Council president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan said the statutory declaration was made in accordance with the procedure and sealed by a Commissioner of Oaths.
“A statutory declaration is a document that contains evidence given on oath. It is sworn before a commissioner for oaths. As in the case of all evidence given under oath, it cannot be withdrawn,” she said.
Ah… me just experienced a nostalgic moment re-living the Malaysia’s famous statutory declaration.
Nostalgic moment is re-lived again when I read Raja Petra‘s article from Malaysia-Today:
“Did the MCA president, Ong Tee Keat, receive RM10 million in cash from Kuala Dimensi’s Tiong King Sing? Ong says noTiong says yes. That means we need a third person to tell us which of the two is telling the truth. And that third person should be the one who packed the money and acted as the courier between the two.”
And so, we readers were regaled with a copy of a sworn statement by Tiong’s dutiful assistant, an Encik Azman Bin Abdul Rahman, who works in Tiong’s Political Department in Kuala Lumpur and Sarawak.
My impression was here’s a very time wasting effort. Why did the dude make a sworn statement in front of a lawyer?
Why did he not make a stab directly at the heart of the matter by making a real Statutory Declaration in front of a Commissioner of Oath? Does Tiong needs a strong collaborator for his Kuala Dimensi SB case, or doesn’t he?
Bloodhound, a commentator at Malaysia-Today made an astute observation:
Bloodhound, September 09, 2009 01:06:23
“This third party’s sworn statement may not be as concrete as made out to be especially if the person is still under the employment of Tiong King Sing because we all know that there is not much a BN warlord cannot do that law enforcers will not look the other way especially those with deep pockets.
An independent third party’s statement will be a better and more meaningful declaration.
Moreover, the sworn statement is dated 22nd August 2009 which means that it just recently signed which merely signifies that Tiong King Sing is pulling out all stops in order to pin the charge against Ong.
Probably, the person is told by his employer to make the statement in order to lend support to their effort to incriminate Ong or to damage his reputation. Employees of an interested party do not really provide strong support in tandem with their employer’s claims.
Now, regardless whether the events did or did not happen at all, the damage is already done and they are going for the jugular. Let’s see what Ong can come up with to counteract the claims.”
BananaC did some research and came up with some findings and… drumroll… ta da!…..
Under the ACT 13 STATUTORY DECLARATIONS ACT 1960 (REVISED – 1969), it must be signed before a Sessions Court Judge, Magistrate or Commissioner for Oaths (which it was not in this case, as it was signed in front of an advocate and solicitor).
Somemore, there’s a standard format for SD.
This “Witness Statement” ‘tak power’ lar.
Let’s hope Ali, Ah Chong and Muthu are not confusing this “Witness statement” as the sexy Statutory Declaration.