So much for 'independence of the judiciary'

'The simple truth is that whoever stands to benefit from the outcome of an action is logically the prime suspect of being part of it.'

Court strikes out subpoenas on Najib, Rosmah

Cala: PM Najib Abdul Razak has missed an opportunity to clear his name. How do you explain his strange behaviour of preaching something but often than not doing something else?

Surely he is the last person to embrace Confucianism or its associated ‘Asian values', since under this paradigm, "my words are my bond".

His unwillingness to prove his innocence in the Sodomy II gives rise to more suspicions that he has indeed a hand in it.

To the ordinary people on the street, they have the right to ask what he - as Dean Johns put it - "intend to do to restore people's rights to transparency, truth and justice that have been so comprehensively eroded over the decades of rule by the BN regime".

The simple truth is that whoever stands to benefit from the outcome of an action is in logic the prime suspect of playing a part in it.

In the Teoh Beng Hock (TBH) case, his untimely death was closely linked to the Umno-led BN regime since, collectively speaking, it is the benefactor in the event of the collapse of the Selangor Pakatan Rakyat government.

Similarly, if Pakatan leader Anwar Ibrahim is convicted, the benefactor is the Umno-led BN regime. Putting the two together, Najib, as head of the regime, has a lot to answer for on his need to meet Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

You can tell it to the marines that a below-average student needed the PM's personal intervention for a scholarship.

Keturunan Malaysia: No general in his right sense of mind is so crazy as to even whisper bad things about the sitting emperor.

Ben-Ghazi: This decision just goes to show that the PM Najib and Rosmah Mansor are above the law. The judge would be in trouble if he makes the duo testify.

So much for 'independence of the judiciary'. This decision will surely make most Malaysians disappointed - it would have been interesting to see how the 'performance now' prime minister performs on the witness stand.

Anonymous_3fc4: The judge can only dance to the master's tune. This was expected and it can only happen in Malaysia.

Nil: Not relevant and material witnesses? I would have thought you only know that when the lawyers start questioning them.

Anak Sabah1: The authority to judge is given by Allah and it is a very heavy responsibility indeed to ensure that such authority is discharged in a fair and just manner, less the wrath of Allah will be on such person.

We should be grateful that we are not judges because of the terrible retribution of making an unjust and evil judgment.

Geronimo: A subpoena is a subpoena. Once served, you appear in court and then it's up to the court and the lawyers to decide on its relevancy.

In this country, we have judges who plagiarised written judgments from a judge of another country and hoped he would not be found out; two years have gone by and there is still no sign of a written judgment on the Altantuya Shaariibuu case. And now this?

Aku Melayu: One finger points to Najib as a coward for not wanting to testify in the sodomy II trial, while another four fingers points to Anwar, the most cowardly accused person for choosing to give a political statement from the dock instead of a sworn testimony from the witness box, preventing prosecutors from cross-examining him.

Anonymous_3e86: Najib has once again gone back on his word. First, for agreeing to appear in court, and now using the BN-controlled judges and courts to shield him from exposing himself.

Even if he is subpoenaed by the French courts, he would not go - that we can be sure of. And even if he and Abdul Razak Baginda are found to have a role in the Scorpene scandal by the French, nothing will be done by our authorities.

FellowMalaysian: A subpoena is a written order, issued by the court and presumably under the instruction of the presiding judge and with his consent, instructing someone to attend a court of law, in this case, the High Court of Kuala Lumpur.

The witness or witnesses refused to appear in court. And the same judge struck out the subpoena by saying they (Najib and Rosmah) are not relevant and material witnesses in the trial. If so, why then was the subpoena issued in the first place?

Fz2379: Though I think it's better fo Najib to take a stand, Anwar clearly was abusing the court process with the sole purpose of embarrassing others. Anwar did not to take a stand as a witness, so he cannot complain if others don't.

Hope: Why don't Anwar and Wan Azizah Wan Ismail take the stand and tell the court why he got Saiful into his inner circle within two to three months of becoming a volunteer for PKR?

After that, he even took Saiful to overseas trips. Anwar himself should answer some of these questions and not blame Najib for conspiracy or whatever. How in hell could Saiful penetrate Anwar's circle in three months?

Not Convinced: The last time I checked, our justice system is based on the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty'. As such, it is the onus of the accusers to bring to court the evidence against the accused.

Anwar, as the accused, has the constitutional right to remain silence. Just because he chose not to testify doesn't mean his accusers can opt out too. Our justice system does not work that way.

Manjit Bhatia: Of course, this judge was going to rule in favour of Najib and Rosmah.

But that he had even agreed to the issuance of the subpoenas in the first place raises questions of his judgment afterward that Najib and Rosmah are irrelevant and immaterial to the case, especially when Najib had met Saiful two days before he claimed he was sodomised by Anwar.

One would think there is a sufficient prima facie case, and for the defence to reveal the nature and content of Najib's meeting with Saiful.

1M: "In allowing Najib and Rosmah's application to be set aside, justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah said they are not relevant and material witnesses in the trial."

Anwar's team is trying to argue that his case is a political conspiracy, so here they are trying to establish the fact that both Najib and Rosmah were involved in it. After all, Najib has admitted meeting Saiful two days before the alleged sodomy.

A kindergarten student can see how relevant they are in this trial, why can't a High Court judge see it?

Lim Chong Leong: How come Najib could advise Saiful to report to police when they met when the sodomy happened two days after that? Did the sodomy occur before or after the meeting or after?

If before, then the charge cannot stand as it is, and also the sperm cannot remain so long and still be pristine. As such, Najib is material witness to clear the contradiction in evidence.

Changeagent: The High Court must be so arrogant to think that they can deceive the public into thinking that they are dispensing a fair trial to the accused.

But let's review judge Zabidin's abominable performance in the trial so far. He failed to take action against Utusan Malaysia for showing contempt to the court; he intimidated a counsel by threatening contempt which he later retracted; he ruled that the defence could have access to the prosecution's hospital pro-forma documents only to overrule his own decision; he displayed his own bias and conclusivity by calling Saiful a 'truthful and credible witness'; and now he strikes out subpoenas on Najib and Rosmah even though they had acknowledged meeting with Saiful to discuss about the sodomy matter.

Pigs can fly if Anwar can have a fair trial. - Malaysiakini