The Kuala Lumpur High Court has allowed the Bar Council's objection against admitting former police officer Jude Blacious Pereira as an advocate and solicitor.

He was the main police investigator in the Sodomy II trial against Anwar Ibrahim, who was later acquitted.

Pereira had applied to practise in Ipoh where he had completed his chambering after retiring from the police force with the rank of superintendent.

Lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar ( left ) and Pavendeep Singh said the Bar Council objected to his petition because he was found "not to be a credible witness" during a human rights hearing in a case involving the arrest of five lawyers in Kuala Lumpur who were assisting those arrested during a candlelight vigil.

The Suhakam inquiry that found Pereira not a credible witness was chaired by then commissioner Muhammad Shafee Abdullah.

The human rights case involved the Brickfields police arresting the five lawyers - Puspawati Rosman, Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Murnie Hidayah Anuar, Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal and Syuhaini Safwan  for allegedly failing to disperse following a directive issued by then district police chief Wan Abdul Bari Wan Abdul Khalid.

The Suhakam inquiry found that the police had acted mala fide and that Wan Bari and Pereira clearly violated human rights.

Shafee has now been appointed by attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail last July, as the prosecutor in the appeal over Anwar’s acquittal.

Justice Zaleha Yusof agreed with the Bar Council that Pereira is "not a fit and proper person to be admitted as a lawyer to practice in the High Court of Malaya".

"The court also makes consequential order for Pereira's petition (for admission) to be struck out," she said.

Pereira or his lawyer were not present to listen to the judgment as the order was made before Justice Zaleha in chambers.

Bar has right to object

                

Commenting on the matter, Malik said the Bar Council has the right and is duty-bound to object to anyone from gaining admission to practice as lawyers.

"The court's duty in situations like these is to ensure that the admission of the petitioner's concern would not have an adverse impact on the profession and community.

"The Suhakam inquiry panel concluded that Pereira was not a credible witness.

"Any court in Malaysia, Australia or New Zealand hold that a lawyer must have high standards of honesty and integrity,” he added.

Pereira had filed his petition for admission on July 23, 2012 and was short-called under Sections 36(2) (a) and (b) of the Legal Profession Act 1976.

However, he failed in the Ethics and Professional Standards course examination organised by the Bar Council on March 13 and 14 last year.

The Bar Council informed Pereira that it would be objecting his admission as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya on the ground that he was not fit for admission to the Bar.

Under Section 11 (1) of the LPA, a qualified person must be of good character but the Bar Council said Pereira being the second highest ranking police officer on duty at Brickfields was involved in the arrest of the five and cited the Suhakam inquiry report.

"We find the evidence of Pereira totally unsatisfactory. He was either consciously not telling the truth or suffered from a serious bout of loss of memory," the inquiry stated in its

finding.

The Bar Council had held an extraordinary general meeting to condemn the arrest of the five lawyers in May 2009.