Had checkmates Ambiga and Clare

Ambiga can deny she told Clare that Najib paid Hadi a RM90 million bribe (which will kill Clare’s defence in the UK court that she was ‘reliably informed’, which means she lied) or, if she admits she did tell Clare that Najib paid Hadi a RM90 million bribe, that would mean Clare made that allegation based purely on hearsay and not based on tangible evidence (which will kill Clare’s defence in the UK court because hearsay is not admissible in court unless Ambiga goes to court and testifies that she did indeed tell Clare that).


Raja Petra Kamarudin

This is what Ambiga Sreenevasan said today:

It has been reported in the Malaysian media that the police are investigating me under Section 505 (b) of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission Act 1998 [MCMC Act 1998] pursuant to a police report lodged by UMNO’s Zulkarnain Mahdar. 

Legal views have already been expressed as to the inappropriateness of the police action. It is difficult to understand how a defence which mentions me, and is taken by a defendant to resist a defamation action filed voluntarily by a Malaysian politician in a London court, (and thus protected by absolute privilege), can constitute a criminal offence in Malaysia.

I only wish to add that in my view this investigation follows a concerted effort by parties linked with the Claimant in the civil action in the UK, to harass and intimidate me in connection with the defence filed by the defendant. There is also a lack of appreciation that harassing and intimidating a potential witness is viewed very seriously in any court and would be tantamount to contempt.

This was also covered by Malay Mail Online in the news report ‘Ambiga: How Is Being Mentioned In Lawsuit Defence A Crime?’ (READ HERE).


In that news report PKR’s Member of Parliament, N. Surendran, demanded that the IGP, Mohamad Fuzi Harun, explain the legal basis for initiating a criminal investigation against Ambiga, saying that a fundamental legal principle was that no one can be accused of a criminal offence for either an act or omission by another party.

If this is the way the law works then how can Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak be considered guilty based merely on allegations made by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and all his paid minions and foreign bloggers and journalists that he bribed to slander Najib? As Surendran said, “A fundamental legal principle was that no one can be accused of a criminal offence for either an act or omission by another party.”

Pakatan Harapan people are always getting caught in their own web of deceit. They lay a trap for others and when they get caught in their own trap they cry foul and scream that this is not how the game should be played. These Pakatan people are downright sore losers. When they touch the ball they say it is not a foul but when others touch the ball they cry foul.

Surendran is one mother of a pundek. Maybe he should slow down on the toddy because he is talking nonsense.

The truth is the PAS President, Abdul Hadi Awang, has pushed Ambiga and Clare Rewcastle Brown into a corner and both are now trapped like cornered rats.

By the way, did you know that male rats are called bucks, female rats are called does, pregnant or parent female rats are called dams, infant rats are called kittens or pups, while a group of rats is referred to as a mischief.

So when two female rats get together they are called mischief…which is probably why Ambiga and Clare get up to so much mischief when you corner them like rats.




TELEGRAM: Raggie Jessy Rithaudeen

TWITTER: Raggie Jessy Rithaudeen

WEBSITE: raggiejessyrithaudeen.com