KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (July 2): The High Court today granted Deloitte partner Ng Yee Hong’s request to bar Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership from acting for two Malaysian Institute of Accountants committees (MIA). Ng and the other parties received the ruling through email this evening from Justice Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid. The judge, on the other hand, has yet to disclose the reasons for his ruling.
Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Ng’s lawyer, confirmed the ruling to theedgemarkets.com.
Ng is accused of being the auditor who signed the 2013 and 2014 audit reports for 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB), for which he has already faced two complaints and has just received a third.
Malik had argued in the High Court in May that Steven Thiru & Sudhar should not represent MIA’s investigation committee (IC) and disciplinary committee (DC) because the firm had previously represented the two committees in the first complaint against Ng, in which the Court of Appeal allowed the application to have the firm removed from the judicial review application.
“Since the initial complaint, the firm and its counsel have been involved. Because they are involved in the first, they are in a conflict of interest when it comes to representing the IC and DC in the second and third complaints.
“We have no objection to them cross-examining Ng, but we are concerned that the same attorneys are also participating in the MIA’s second and third complaints against our client, as though they want to see our client implicated,” he had stated.
In respect to 1MDB, Ng is facing two sets of charges. The first came after Andrew Anand Solomon Devesahayam made an allegation on March 31, 2015, and the second came after Damansara member of Parliament Tony Pua made an allegation on May 26, 2015.
During the first court review session last year, a decision was made about the first complaint, and MIA was banned from disclosing the outcome, while the second one was still pending.
Steven Thiru & Sudhar’s counsel, Porres Royan, contended that the bar for recusing a law firm is extremely high.
He said that the firm’s counsel, T Sudhar, had already been involved in cross-examining Ng.
“This does not imply that he advised IC or DC. To disqualify the law firm, there must be substantial proof and a strong motive “There is no basis to disqualify the lawyers, and there is no evidence that they are acting on conflict-of-interest advice. As a result, we believe this application should be denied “The lawyer had made his case./n
