The lawyer for Najib Abdul Razak, Shafee Abdullah, was alleged to have said that a court decision on Najib's house arrest had curtailed the powers of the Malay rulers and governors in pardon applications.
The alleged statement duly triggered Bukit Gelugor MP Ramkarpal Singh to ask Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Azalina Othman Said in Parliament whether the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) had any intention of initiating contempt proceedings against the said microphone-friendly lawyer.
Azalina told the Dewan Rakyat that, based on input received by the AGC, the latter is still reviewing issues related to contempt of court proceedings against Shafee.
A contempt of court is essentially an exception to the freedom of speech and expression duly guaranteed under Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution and under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
The usual mantra frequently invoked by the court in justifying the law on contempt of court is a balance that must be struck between the right to freedom of speech and the need to protect the interests of the judicial system, hence maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.
The law of contempt of court is premised on the need to ensure that nobody would be given a carte blanche to unduly interfere in the administration of justice or as stated by Lord Diplock that all the laws of contempt - either civil or criminal contempt - “[i]nvolves an interference with the due administration of justice”.
Without fear and favour
It goes without saying that public confidence in the judicial system is of paramount importance. Therefore, in administering its judicial function - which is primarily to uphold justice - any court of law ought to be free to exercise such a sacrosanct duty without fear and favour.
The element of public interest is invariably attached to the law of contempt. Be that as it may, should there be any attempt by anybody to unduly obstruct the judges from carrying out their solemn duty, the law on contempt of court may serve as a powerful sentinel in preventing such an interference.
Since the AGC is reportedly in the midst of reviewing Shafee’s purported contemptuous statement, it would be premature to hurriedly pass a sentence against him.
While justice delayed is justice denied, justice hurried is justice buried. In any case, lawyers view contempt as a quasi-criminal offence. Ergo, in my view, like any other criminal suspect, Shafee is entitled to be presumed innocent too.
Lawyer or spin doctor?
It is common knowledge that Shafee loves making comments to the press, especially if the court’s verdicts were not favourable to his clients, particularly his true-blue client Najib.
And in making his comment, one may reasonably ask whether Shafee was acting in his capacity as a lawyer or a spin doctor? To be fair, he may argue that the press conference was highly necessary because the media report may have failed to truly reveal what had actually transpired in court.
Assuming that was his justification for the press conference, the members of the legal fraternity may simply negate it and, in turn, argue, “Why don’t you complain to the trial judge about the problem? After all, you are, for heaven’s sake, a lawyer, not a politician!”
Some may contend that his alleged contemptuous statement, namely a court decision on Najib's house arrest, had curtailed the powers of the Malay rulers and governors in pardon applications, which seems to be more political than legal.
Irrespective of whether such a statement was purely political or legal, our legal system requires a court of law - not a court of public opinion - to decide whether Shafee would be guilty or innocent!
Who knows, he may be guilty in both courts. - Mkini
HANIPA MAIDIN is a former deputy minister of law.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.