KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 11 — Prominent lawyer Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan is under investigation because two reports have been lodged against her, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Mohamad Fuzi Harun said today.

He explained that the police have a standard procedure to follow when complaints are made.

“When people lodge reports, we have to investigate. If we don’t investigate, we will be blamed, if we investigate, we will still be blamed,” he told reporters at the police Special Action Unit training centre in Cheras.

He added that the complaints against the National Human Rights Society president are not light as it involved millions of ringgit.

“We have to give a proper probe on the allegation and it is a very serious allegation. It’s also not a small amount of money involved, it’s RM90 million. Whether or not the people involved are overseas, we still have to take action,” he said.

Ambiga is being investigated under both Section 505(b) of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission Act 1998 for the alleged offences of making a statement conducting public mischief and improper use of network facilities following a police report filed by Datuk Zulkarnain Mahdar, chairman of the Umno Grassroots Movement.

Ambiga and the Malaysian Bar have questioned the legal basis for the police investigation, based on UK court documents filed by whistleblower website Sarawak Report’s editor Clare Rewcastle Brown who is being sued for defamation by PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang.

Abdul Hadi initiated the suit after Sarawak Report published an article alleging that RM90 million was banked into the accounts of PAS leaders in return for their support for Umno and the Barisan Nasional.

It was previously reported that Rewcastle-Brown had cited a conversation she had with Ambiga in her defence filing last month.

In a statement yesterday, Ambiga suggested that certain people linked to Abdul Hadi are trying to harass and intimidate her, noting that such actions against a potential witness could be considered contempt of court.