A lawyer has come forward to explain the possible reasons why independent preacher Zamri Vinoth was taken to court in handcuffs yesterday, while activist Arun Dorasamy was not.
This followed a controversy over the difference in treatment between the two individuals embroiled in the dispute over a temple land issue, which triggered accusations of double standards in law enforcement.
In a Facebook post titled “Kelas Undang-undang” (lesson on law), lawyer Asiah Jalil said the difference does not necessarily stem from unfair treatment but rather is linked to police arrest and investigation procedures.
According to her, after a suspect is arrested and the remand period ends, he or she would usually be released on police bail if authorities have not yet pressed charges.
“After being released, the suspect cannot be arrested again (for the same offence). This means the police cannot arrest someone two or three times for investigations related to the same offence.
“Later, if the authorities are ready to bring the case to court, the police will issue a notice for the suspect to appear in court on a specified date.
“The suspect can go to court freely without being escorted or handcuffed,” she said in a posting yesterday.
Asiah (above) pointed out that in Arun’s case, the Temple Preservation Action Team (Tepat) chairperson had allegedly committed the offence in March 2025.
Given that it allegedly happened about a year ago, she said it was likely that Arun had gone through the arrest and investigation process earlier than Zamri, who was charged over a statement he allegedly made in February this year.
“So do you understand now why Arun went to court without handcuffs, while Zamri was?
“I believe Arun would have been arrested last year while Zamri was yet to have any arrest report (before this),” she said.
Sparking criticisms
Asiah’s explanation came as authorities were heavily criticised for handcuffing Zamri when he was brought before the Kuala Lumpur Magistrate’s Court yesterday.
Among the critics was Umno Youth chief Dr Akmal Saleh, who questioned the difference in treatment compared to Arun, who appeared without handcuffs at the Jawi Magistrates’ Court.
The issue was further intensified by the presence of Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) M Kulasegaran, who accompanied Arun to court, sparking criticism over possible interference in the judicial process.
Kulasegaran had since clarified the matter, saying that he only talked to Arun briefly when he stopped by the court on his way back to Kuala Lumpur and that he was not present in the courtroom.
Asiah further stressed that whether or not an accused person is handcuffed should not be viewed in isolation, but must be assessed based on the chronology of the investigation and the arrest status in each case.
“The police cannot arrest a person more than once for the same offence. That is a basic principle in criminal procedure,” she added.
Pleading not guilty
Zamri, 42, whose full name is Zamri Vinoth Kalimuthu, was charged at the Kuala Lumpur Magistrates’ Court yesterday under Section 505(b) of the Penal Code, which provides punishment for statements made with the intent to cause, or which are likely to cause, public alarm.
He was accused of committing the offence through a Facebook post on Feb 3 related to a gathering involving an “illegal temple”.
Arun, whose full name is Arumugam Dorasamy, 56, was charged under the same legal provision at the Jawi Magistrates’ Court in Nibong Tebal, Penang.
He was accused of making a statement on his Instagram account which could incite others to commit an offence against public order.
Arun had allegedly committed the offence at a shopping mall in Batu Kawan, Seberang Perai Selatan district, at 3.45pm on March 12 last year. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.