Thursday, October 11, 2012
Letter To SUARAM Lawyer, William Bourdon
Dear Mr William Bourdon,
It has been reported that you would be willing to brief members of parliament in Malaysia at the invitation of Mr Anwar Ibrahim, the Malaysian opposition leader in parliament.
That said and should your visit materialise, I would be most grateful if you could respond to my queries, whether to this mail or at the venue of the intended brief, that is, to the Scorpene investigations ongoing in France.
I have no doubts as to your sincerity and integrity as a lawyer. However, the same cannot be said of your client, SUARAM. Consider the following excerpts from various official statements of your client, SUARAM, appended chronologically for intent and purpose.
A. 14 February 2012, "OPS SCORPENE UPDATE" (http://www.suaram.net/?p=2393)
"During these past weeks, we have been in touch with our lawyers, William Bourdon and Joseph Breham regularly, and with every passing week, they tell us that the decision by the courts is very close, and the waiting time will end very soon."
B. 18 March 2012, "FRENCH COURTS OPENS INQUIRY INTO SCORPENE SUBMARINE SCANDAL: INSTRUCTION JUDGES APPOINTED" (http://www.suaram.net/?p=2569)
"While quite frankly not expecting the complaint to make its way up in a foreign judicial system, we waited with baited breath for 2 anxious years, and witnessed with disbelief, how the Prosecutors office began to unravel further details of new commissions paid out, travel invoices and other payments made in the course of the procurement process. The murder of Altantuya Shaaribu, although not directly tied to the complaint filed, is intricately linked with the alleged payments and kickbacks made."
"Our lawyers have also informed us that a SUARAM delegation will need to be present before the judge, as key witnesses, to start off proceedings of the case."
C. 31 March 2012, "SUARAM lawyers get access to French court papers (Malaysiakini)" (http://www.suaram.net/?p=2630)
"On Thursday 29th March (my emphasis), Suaram’ lawyers in France, informed the NGO that they had obtained access to court papers related to the case involving the RM77.3 billion purchase of two scorpene submarines."
(Note: This statement is the only one from SUARAM from an internet news item as posted at their website)
D. 3 May 3 2012, "SCORPENE SUBMARINE SCANDAL – THE GREAT MALAYSIAN ROBBERY" (http://www.suaram.net/?p=3276)
"As was reported, the SUARAM delegation comprising Kua Kia Soong, Cynthia Gabriel and Fadiah Nadwa, returned after a successful trip to Paris, and a hearing before judge Roger Le Loire, one of the two Instruction Judges assigned to oversee the French inquiry into the controversial purchase of the 2 submarines by the Malaysian government in 2002.
SUARAM has gained full access to investigation papers from the Public Prosecutor’s office. This is a huge step forward, as many of the details kept confidential are now made accessible to SUARAM as the Plaintiff in the civil case against the DCNS.
French law provides several constraints on the area of access. While we are not able to obtain a hard copy and distribute copies around, we are however entitled to full view of the documents and are able to quote them to the media and to the public."
Query 1: In all honesty, do you consider this statement in (A. above) "they tell us that the decision by the courts is very close" to be an accurate statement by your client?
Query 2: SUARAM specifically states (B above) they "witnessed" "how the Prosecutors office began to unravel further details of new commissions paid out, travel invoices and other payments made in the course of the procurement process", meaning your clients had sighted documents. As the "case" had not started proceedings, is the statement by your client an accurate statement of fact or how can this be so?
Query 3: Although (C. above) is an internet news item carried at your client's website, how could your client be privy to information of "new commissions paid out, travel invoices and other payments made" on 18 March when your good self only "obtained access to court papers related to the case" on 29 March?
Query 4: (I presume) As a result of SUARAM needing (B above) "to be present before the judge" "to start off proceedings of the case", (D above) "a hearing before judge Roger Le Loire, one of the two Instruction Judges assigned to oversee the French inquiry" was carried out. That your client are "not able to obtain a hard copy", is this another accurate statement of fact?
Query 5: Although (D above) your client is "entitled to full view of the documents" are they allowed by French laws to "quote them to the media and to the public"?
Query 6: Even though your client seem to contradict themselves and publish details of documents, again, is this allowed French laws?
Query 7: Lately, remarks of French District Prosecutor, Mr Yves Charpenel, your client published your response thus which does not establish nor rebut anything, (http://www.suaram.net/?p=3839) are you truly aware of your client's schemes and actions over here in Malaysia, away from France?
Mr Bourdon, whether your volunteer to brief Malaysian parliamentarians is ocassioned or not, I do not see what useful inputs could possibly be raised other than what is already known of the ongoing investigation in France.
Therefore and finally,
Query 8: By your intended brief, what purpose would it serve if inputs are restricted and/or a careless disclosure could result in a penalty of nullity with the investigation and all your endeavours resulting in nought?
Thank you for your kind attention and anticipated response.
My reference is made to your country's Code of Criminal Procedure:
Articles 11, 56, 57, 59, 98, 114, and 520
The letter was sent via e-mail to Mr Bourdon at email@example.com
and Query no 4. has importance significance.
at 7:06 PM