Today's complaint alleged that SFO director Grant Liddell had acted illegally by supplying information to the privileges committee. The complaint accused him and other members of the SFO of abuse of statutory powers.
Last week Mr Peters argued section 39 of the Serious Fraud Act precluded the SFO's actions.
"What they've done is totally ultra vires (beyond its powers) and they've done it with malice in my view and I will set out to prove it."
I've got mixed thoughts on this. Is it nothing more than a publicity stunt by NZ First, which has taken a pounding in the Court of Public Opinion in the last few weeks? Or is there something more sinister? Could this be an attempt by NZ First, aided and abetted by the Labour Party to muzzle the SFO, or get them to back off?
It's sad that one even has to pose that question. However the events of the past nine years, well chronicled by DPF at Kiwiblog this afternoon suggest that we can no longer take any possibility for granted. And it leaves Keeping Stock wondering just what was on the agenda when Michael Cullen met the Director of the SFO this morning.
UPDATE: Kiwiblog carries a link to Dean Knight, Public Law specialist from Victoria University which rebuts the grounds on which NZ First has complained to the Police, and suggests that NZ First may even be in contempt of Parliament. And I can't resist reproducing DPF's opening paragraph...
As people will have read, NZ First is outraged that the SFO has revealed to the Privileges Committee that the evidence given by Peters and Henry is false. I mean shame on the SFO - how dare they reveal the truth. What sort of law enforcement body do they think they are.