This afternoon at about 3.30 pm, my solicitors, M/s William Leong & Co., filed an application in the Criminal Division of the High Court of Kuala Lumpur to set aside the section 22 order issued by the ACA against me on Monday 22nd October 2007 asking me to deliver up to them the full 14 minute original video recording.

I take the view that this order is illegal, unreasonable and irrational. It asks me to do something that is physically impossible. It is also mala fide because I had already given a statement to the ACA that the original full version was with the source who brought it to me.

I reiterate that I was prepared to give to the ACA a proper copy of the recording which they can use to authenticate it and proceed with their investigation. Unfortunately they failed to turn up as promised yesterday and said they will be contacting me soon.

I urge the ACA to stay focused on the real issue – the issue of corruption disclosed in the video recording. A Royal Commission is the only way forward to investigate this matter thoroughly and effectively.

ANWAR IBRAHIM

Full Affidavit:

Enclosure

Affirmation Date: 26.10.2007

Filing Date: 26.10.2007

Hearing Date:

IN THE MATTER OF THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR

(CRIMINAL DIVISION)
MISCELLANOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2007

In the matter under Section 22(1)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1997

AND

In the matter under Section 29(c) of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1997

AND

In the matter of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court

Affidavit

I, DATO’ SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM (NRIC No. ***), a Malaysian citizen of full age and having an address at No. 17, Jalan 16/2, 46000 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm as follows: -

1. I am a Consultant in governance and economy.

2. I am able to depose to the truth of the matters stated in this affidavit from my personal knowledge.

3. I make this Affidavit in support of my Notice of Motion filed herein.

4. On 5.10.2007, 2 officers from the Respondent, the Badan Pencegah Rasuah (“BPR”) came to my office at No. 17, Jalan 16/2, 46000 Petaling Jaya by prior appointment, Selangor Darul Ehsan to interview me on a report lodged by Mr Sivarasa Rasiah on 20.10.2007 with regard to suspected corrupt practice involving the fixing of judicial appointments, including that of Tun Ahmad Fairuz bin Sheikh Abdul Halim as the President of the Court of Appeal. I was interviewed in the presence of my solicitor, Mr. Willam Leong.

5. This report was based on the contents of a video recording showing a lawyer, Dato V.K. Lingam speaking to Tun Fairuz. I had received a 8 minute copy of the said video recording from sources I am unable to name at the moment and released it to the media through a press conference on 19.9.07. Although I had initially viewed a 14 minute version of the recording, I was only given a copy by the said sources of the first 8 minutes of the video recording.

6. On Monday 22nd October 2007, three officers of the BPR came to my office again by prior appointment. A further statement was recorded from me in the presence of my lawyers Mr. William Leong, Mr. Sankaran Nair and Mr. Sivarasa Rasiah. The BPR officers were En. Sazali Saldi, Director Special Investigations Section, En. Wan Rahman Senior Investigator and En. Harris Mohd, Senior Investigator.

7. I was asked if I had in my possession the original recording of the full 14 minute version. I informed the officers that I was not in possession of the original recording. I also informed them that I would be able to provide them with an authentic copy of the 8 minute version in a thumb-drive which they would be able to then authenticate technically and suggested that I do that on Thursday 25th October 2007 at my office. This was agreed to by the officers.

8. After the recording of the statement was completed, the officers left the room to make the telephone calls. They returned and then requested me to accept service of a order under section 22(1)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 requesting me to deliver up on or before Thursday 25th October 2007 the original 14 minute video recording described as follows “Klip video asal rakaman penuh perbualan telefon (selama lebih kurang 14 minit) yang dikatakan antara V.K. Lingam dan seorang hakim kanan pada tahun 2002”. A true copy of the said order is now produced and shown to me and marked as Exhibit “AI-1”.

9. I then asked the officers why they were issuing me this order, which was obviously pre-prepared, when I had just told them that I was not in possession of the original. They informed me that they were instructed to do so.

10. On Thursday, 25th October 2007, En. Sazali called me about 9.30 a.m. to inquire as to when they could see me. I suggested between 11.00 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. He said he would call to confirm.

11. At about 10.45 a.m., he called again to ask if I would see them at my office or my home. I said that I was at my office. He said there was a crowd there. I then informed him there were about 150 persons present including about 50 media persons and gave him a personal assurance that the process of handing over the thumb-drive would not take longer than 10 minutes.

12. At about 11.05 a.m., he called again and said that our meeting was cancelled using the words “terpaksa dibatalkan”. He said he would call again to discuss an appropriate time to meet to collect the thumb-drive.

13. I am advised by my solicitors and therefore verily believe that the said section 22 order issued to me is bad in law and a nullity and ought to be set aside for the following reasons:

1. Its issuance is irrational and unreasonable as no factual foundation exists for the demand that is made therein. I cannot deliver something which I do not have.

2. The manner of its issuance by the Respondent knowing full well that I had just confirmed that I did not have the original recording being demanded shows mala fides on its part.

3. Its issuance is an abuse of the powers available to the Respondent under Part IV of the Act and in particular section 22. As the then Chairman of the Cabinet Committee of Government Management entrusted with the drafting of the Act and who subsequently tabled it in Parliament, I am conversant that the purpose and objective of the section is to grant the investigating officers the powers to extract evidence, information and relevant documents from persons suspected of corruption offences. However, in this instance, contrary to the intention of Parliament and the Act, such powers are being abused here in an attempt to harass and intimidate me as a person who had voluntarily disclosed the alleged corruption offences as part of my public duties.

14. I am also advised and verily believe that non-compliance with the said order constitutes a criminal offence under section 29 of the Act read with sections 57 and 58 which is punishable with imprisonment up to two years and/or a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit.

15. Clearly, the issuance of this order is a direct threat to my personal freedom and a violation of my constitutional rights. Since the order has no legal basis for its issuance, I believe that it is politically motivated.

16. On the above premises, I pray for an order in terms of my application herein.

Affirmed by DATO’ SERI ANWAR )

BIN IBRAHIM on 26th day of October 2007)
at Kuala Lumpur (No interpretation required) Before me

Commissioner for Oaths

This Affidavit is affirmed on 26.10.2007 and filed on 26.10.2007 by Messrs William Leong & Co, Solicitors for the Applicant abovenamed.

Ref: WL/Yus/LT-03/DSAI/076/07