Former law minister Zaid Ibrahim lamented today on the "failure" of his former law firm to train Umno lawyer Hafarizam Harun and Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Azalina Othman Said.

"When I look at the antics of Hafarizam and Azalina, I feel a bit sad. I thought ZI (Zaid Ibrahim & Co) has trained them well. But no.

"A lawyer must have the capacity to differentiate between what is good and bad, facts and lies," Zaid tweeted this morning.

Azalina, who is minister in charge of parliamentary affairs, yesterday ordered a stop to all questions related to the RM2.6 billion donation scandal in Parliament, arguing that it would be in contempt of an ongoing court proceeding.

This follows the Malaysian Bar's filing of a judicial review on attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali's decision not to press charges against Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

However, PKR vice-president N Surendran ( photo ) claimed that Azalina has completely failed to understand how the sub judice rule applies in Parliament.

"Debates or questions in Parliament cannot be stopped if these relate to a matter of national importance, even though a related case is pending in court," Surendran said, adding that the same position is taken in other Commonwealth parliaments, including the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

At the same time, the Padang Serai MP added, Azalina also misunderstood the nature and scope of judicial review, which is a process to examine a public authority (in this case the AG) that had made a decision.

"The Bar's case is not about the merits or truth of the allegations against the PM on the RM2.6 billion and SRC International Sdn Bhd cases.

"Therefore, any discussion by the Dewan Rakyat on these matters cannot be sub judice as the court is not concerned with the truth or otherwise of the allegations against the prime minister," Surendran said.

'Sub judice rule cannot be absolute'

In another statement, DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang said all MPs must be mindful that the sub judice rule is to protect the court from parliamentary interference, not to provide ministers with a convenient device to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

"The sub judice rule cannot be absolute but must strike a balance between two sets of principles," Lim, the MP for Gelang Patah, said.

He said the balance is between protecting the rights of parties in legal proceedings as well as Parliament's constitutional right and obligation to discuss major national issues affecting the country’s future.

However, Hafarizam ( photo ), on his part, has declared that the Malaysian Bar's intention to seek Apandi's resignation is tantamout to challenging the royal prerogative of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

The Malaysian Bar is expected to debate a motion calling on Apandi to resign as the attorney-general at its annual general meeting on Saturday.