The two PKR members, who were issued an ultimatum over the VK Lingam video scandal by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), will reveal their stand tomorrow.

The duo were served with notices ( see below ) from the ACA last week instructing them to reveal the source of the video or risk going to jail.

PKR vice-president R Sivarasa and party worker Sim Tze Tzin were told to deliver their replies in seven days, either in person or by registered post to the agency's headquarters in Putrajaya.

Contacted today, Sivarasa said they will keep the process public but expressed concerns over the way the ACA has been investigating this scandal that has rocked the judiciary.

"I have serious reservations about the way the ACA is investigating this matter. If they are interested in the authenticity of the tape, the simplest and surest way is to get a technical expert to verify it.

"I'm surprised and disturbed to note that the ACA has failed to do this and this insistence to get hold of the whistleblower is baffling," he said.

Both Sivarasa and Sim are scheduled to meet ACA officers tomorrow at 11am at the agency's Kuala Lumpur headquarters. There is no indication on what their response to ACA's ultimatum will be but they will be submitting a letter to the agency.

Currently, the authenticity of the tape is being investigated by an independent panel set up by the government. The panel is led by former Chief Judge of Malaya Haidar Mohd Noor.

No confidence

Sivarasa stressed that pursuing the source does not assist them in any way in investigating the alleged corruption found in the video.

The eight-minute video released by PKR on Sept 19 showed senior lawyer Lingam apparently brokering the appointment of 'friendly' judges with Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in 2002.

Both Sivarasa and Sim lodged a report with the ACA the next day calling for an investigation into the video. They were interviewed and asked to disclose the identity of the whistleblower before being issued the notices.

The notice stated that failure to comply with the demand would be a breach of Section 29 (c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997.

Under Section 58 of the same Act, offenders would be liable to a fine of no more than RM10,000 or a two-year jail term.

Meanwhile, Sivarasa also noted that he does not have confidence in the ACA after a blog published a letter that alleged various forms of abuse of power by ACA officers.

The letter said the identity of informants assisting the police in the arrest and investigation of a businessman had been kept secret until the ACA ordered police's commercial crime director Ramli Yusuff to reveal their names for its own investigation.

It was claimed that the ACA officers contacted the informants and subjected them to pressure and threats to make them change their statements to the police, in order to acquit the businessman of any wrongdoing.

"The source has concerns for his security. Also, powerful people have interest to go after our source but in light of the Ramli saga, we are not confident that our source will be protected," said Sivarasa.

Did ACA contact the rest?

Meanwhile, Sim wanted to know if the ACA had contacted those mentioned in the video as part of their investigations.

"I would like to ask, have they contacted Ahmad Fairuz of the other judges mentioned in the video like (current Court of Appeal judges) Heliliah Yusof, Ahmad Maarop and Ramly Ali?

"Have they spoken to (businessman) Vincent Tan and VK Lingam?" he asked.

Sim noted that the ACA should focus on fighting corruption and expressed concern that the limelight should not be on those who released the video but on the judiciary crisis itself.

He also said the ACA should be transparent by giving updates of their investigation because public confidence is at stake.

"We have already been very cooperative on this matter. They should be informing us of the progress because we were the ones who lodged the report," he added.

On the view that ACA's actions could be a form of intimidation, he stressed: "If the government thinks this will intimidate us then they are very well wrong."

SPECIAL REPORT: The Lingam tape