Sue KL mayor instead, says Suaram

The NGO blames Ahmad Fuad’s negligence for losses incurred during the Bersih rally.

PETALING JAYA: Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) should sue Kuala Lumpur Mayor Ahmad Fuad Ismail instead of Bersih leader S Ambiga for alleged losses incurred during the April 28 rally for clean and fair elections.
This advice came today from Suaram.

“DBKL should sue Ahmad for his negligence,” said K Arumugam, chairman of the human rights organisation. “It was his wrong decision of not allowing the rally in Dataran Merdeka that led to the losses.”

Arumugam’s statement was in reaction to DBKL’s threat to sue Ambiga and Bersih steering committee member Maria Chin Abdullah.

Yesterday DBKL sent the two activists a letter of demand, seeking compensation amounting to RM351,203.45.

DBKL director general Salleh Yusup said City Hall would initiate legal action against both unless they paid up within two weeks.

City Hall’s threat came about a month after the government filed a suit against Ambiga and Bersih, seeking RM122,000 in restitution for damages allegedly incurred during the same rally.

Arumugam said DBKL had no grounds to sue since the alleged damage was on public property.

Human rights lawyer Edmund Bon meanwhile said DBKL’s action was further evidence of a conspiracy to demonise the Bersih movement.

“It is a systematic scheme by the government, government agencies and government owned media to demonise and silence calls by Bersih for free and fair elections,” said Bon.

He added that the authorities should “go after individuals who marred a peaceful protest instead of Ambiga”.

Warga Aman, a predominantly Indian NGO, has also urged DBKL to drop its plan to sue Ambiga and Maria.

“The action is insensible and irrelevant. Why demand only from Ambiga and Maria?” Warga Aman secretary general S Barathidasan said when asked for his comment.

Warga Aman caught the nation’s attention last month when it proposed setting up thosai stalls in front of Deputy IGP Khalid Abu Bakar house to mock his statement that similar protests in front of Ambiga’s house were within the law.