PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail had called Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim to discuss the political crisis in the state, three weeks before he was sacked, but he had ignored the calls.

PKR’s Disciplinary Board chairman Datuk Dr Tan Kee Kwong who revealed this said every time Abdul Khalid was called for talks, he would say that he is too busy and does not have the time.

“Three weeks before he was sacked, the party president had called him to talk. Where ever the meeting is to be done is fine, party headquarters or at home but he said he does not have the time,” he said after a meeting with the Registrar of Societies (RoS) on a complaint it received about the party’s disciplinary board.

“But, he had time to go to Kelantan to meet Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat. He also had time to go for open houses organised by Datuk Seri Noh Omar which was also attended by Datuk Seri Najib Razak,” he added.

Dr Tan said although the letter from RoS did not explain what was it investigating, it was evident from its line of inquiry that it is investigating Abdul Khalid’s sacking from the party.

Dr Tan berkata among the questions asked by RoS’s ASP Akmal Yahya, is whether Abdul Khalid had appealed against the sacking on Aug 9.

"Abdul Khalid could have submitted an appeal against the decision 14 days after the sacking but until now, he has not done so,” he added.

Dr Tan said among others, the RoS had also asked for the show cause letter given to Abdul Khalid, explanation on the ‘Kajang move’ and a list of those who attended the meeting on Aug 9 that decided to sack Abdul Khalid.

At the press conference, Dr Tan who was accompanied by lawyer Ragunath Kesavan, read a paragraph of a letter from Abdul Khalid’s lawyers which said ‘our client has little choice but to accept PKR's decision and to move on'.

He said the statement in the letter dated Aug 10, meant that Abdul Khalid accepted PKR’s decision.

Abdul Khalid who was sacked from the party on Aug 9 had asked the RoS to investigate whether the disciplinary board’s decision had violated party’s Constitution.