Three court cases that affect Najib’s credibility

Doubts have been cast as to the fairness of the Malaysian justice system, says blogger Shahbudin.

PETALING JAYA: A persistent critic of Najib Abdul Razak has pointed out that government prosecutors treated Anwar Ibrahim differently from the way they treated Abdul Razak Baginda, a close associate of the Prime Minister.

Prosecutors did not appeal the October 2008 High Court decision that acquitted Abdul Razak of a charge of abetting in the murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu, but they promptly appealed when Anwar was acquitted of sodomy in March 2014.

This casts doubt on the fairness of the Malaysian justice system, says Shahbudin Husin in his latest blog posting.

He says the government’s handling of the two cases, as well as the case of the policemen sentenced to death for the “murder without a motive” of Altantuya, may yet prove to be Najib’s undoing.

The three cases, he adds, leave serious doubts as to the credibility of Najib’s claims of his respect for justice and his espousal of moderation.

“They are the fires that rage in the tinder within the rakyat’s heart and will in time bring everything down,” he warns.

“When one considers the three cases together, whether one is thinking inside the box, outside the box or beside the box, one cannot escape the feeling that there are clear departures in the administration of justice in Najib’s era.

“Only those without a thinking box will affirm and praise the Najib administration’s so-called dedication to moderation and justice.”

Shahbudin acknowledges that Anwar’s conviction yesterday has not been greeted with the kind of noisy protests associated with the birth of the Reformasi movement, but he warns that it would be wrong to assume that his supporters are resigned to his fate.

“The sadness and sympathy with Anwar is being felt everywhere, waiting only to be expressed at the next general election,” he claims.

“In truth, it is Najib who stands to lose the most from Anwar’s conviction.”