FEB 12 — "I am sick of this,” said former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Bador.

He was referring to a police report lodged on sodomy allegations against a notable Opposition politician.

"This matter is a waste of the police resources, and I am sick of such matters. However a police report has been lodged, thus an investigation paper has been opened,” Abdul Hamid reportedly said. 

Bukit Aman Criminal Investigation Department (CID) director Datuk Seri Abdul Jalil Hassan. — Bernama pic

Now, the police report allegedly lodged by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) against activist Lalitha Kunaratnam for allegedly lying in court has rightly been marked as no further action (NFA) by Bukit Aman Criminal Investigation Department (CID) director Datuk Seri Abdul Jalil Hassan.

"For your information, the report that was lodged at Sentul (police station) by the complainant has been marked as NFA because it is not related to the case investigated by Bukit Aman’s classified criminal investigation unit,” Abdul Jalil told Free Malaysia Today (FMT). 

It must also be said that the report pertains to an ongoing civil court action between MACC chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki, the plaintiff, and Lalitha, the defendant.

In a civil suit between two parties, it is in most cases necessary that the matter to be decided by the court between the two be clearly ascertained.

The defendant is entitled to know what it is that the plaintiff alleges against him. The plaintiff is equally entitled to know what defence will be raised by the defendant in answer to his (the plaintiff’s) claim.

In short, the plaintiff will have to state his claim against the defendant while the defendant states his answers to the plaintiff’s claim. Such statements and answers are known in civil suits as pleadings.

What are pleadings?

Pleadings are written statements of fact exchanged between parties in a civil suit, containing all material facts on which the parties rely for the purpose of establishing a claim or defence. The written statements are averments of facts which the party pleading deems material to his case.

The main pleadings are statement of claim and defence (some call it statement of defence). A third pleading is the reply, where the plaintiff may aver that the defence is not maintainable.

The purpose of pleadings is two-fold:

(1)    to inform each party what the case of the opposite party is which the latter will have to meet before and at the trial, allowing a fair and proper notice to an opponent so as to enable him to frame and prepare his own case for trial;

(2)    inform the court what the precise matters in issue are between the parties, which the court alone may adjudicate.

It is said that cases must be decided on the issues on the record and pleadings serve that purpose.

Both plaintiff and defendant are put to strict proof of their averments in their pleadings. The Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit which essentially means "he who alleges or asserts or avers must prove” applies equally to both.

Lalitha’s lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon has rightly labelled the police report lodged against his client as "bordering on the absurd”.

Importantly, the police report could be found in contempt of court. 

Lalitha is entitled to make averments in her statement of defence. Azam is entitled to aver that Lalitha’s defence is not maintainable in his reply. The exchange of pleadings between the two is not closed, yet.

The pleadings in the suit are deemed to be closed 14 days after Azam serves his reply to Lalitha’s defence, or if there is no reply, 14 days after Lalitha’s defence.

The police report is rightly absurd and a waste of police resources.

*This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.